Immigration Referendum

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by 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.

So we only let the hard working ones in then? eh? Is there a test? Can we IQ them at Dublin Port and then straight off to substandard housing in Rathmines, Lucan, Navan....?

Phil_321

Originally posted by 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.

Hey madsl here's your answers:
1. They are not taking jobs, but taking lots of cash from the exchequer.
2. We have enough diversity. Take a look at the problems Britain is experiencing with the muslims who never properly integrated into thier society. That's where we could be in a few decades.
3. So you think we should take them so as to have an underclass to do our dirty work? Now that's racist.
4. I agree, that's the type of people we need. We don't need heavily pregnant women looking to exploit a constitutional loophole, and people looking to live off the social welfare, we the public have to provide.

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by Trebor
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.

To be more precise, the right to private propoerty is but not completely unfettered. A recent Dail committee, the name escapes me, specifically suggested that the constitution not be changed on this issue.

As for voting at the next election, while we are at it, let's leave the immigration issue until then as well.

MadsL

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

No, I'd like to see a fair policy that scores applicants according to the demands of the nation.
I'd like to see an end to this 'floods of refugees' nonsense.
I'd like to see the gvt stop waving stupid statistics around (non-nationals)

This government cannot put out anti-racist messages on one hand and then use bully boy tactics and change the rules to suit them as they have done more than once.

We need a decent immigration policy that recognises the benefits to the nation of immigration, and an end to this knee-jerk 'voice of the people' flim-flam.

btw I will be printing a "I am a non-national" T-shirt. Time for this phrase to get it's comeuppance.

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by Phil_321
Hey madsl here's your answers:
1. They are not taking jobs, but taking lots of cash from the exchequer.
2. We have enough diversity. Take a look at the problems Britain is experiencing with the muslims who never properly integrated into thier society. That's where we could be in a few decades.
3. So you think we should take them so as to have an underclass to do our dirty work? Now that's racist.
4. I agree, that's the type of people we need. We don't need heavily pregnant women looking to exploit a constitutional loophole, and people looking to live off the social welfare, we the public have to provide.

Don;t rise to it MadsL

Trebor

Originally posted by Phil_321
Hey madsl here's your answers:
1. They are not taking jobs, but taking lots of cash from the exchequer.
2. We have enough diversity. Take a look at the problems Britain is experiencing with the muslims who never properly integrated into thier society. That's where we could be in a few decades.
3. So you think we should take them so as to have an underclass to do our dirty work? Now that's racist.
4. I agree, that's the type of people we need. We don't need heavily pregnant women looking to exploit a constitutional loophole, and people looking to live off the social welfare, we the public have to provide.

1.do you have any links that show how many are claiming social welfare?

2.we do not have enough diversity

3.when they come here to work they are more willing to take any job as they could not get one in their own country

4. i agree

silverside

No one is asking us to put forward a law allowing unrestricted immigration. Questions like this are the last resort of the indefensible.

If you agree that we have to restrict immigration for the greater good, then I don't see what your problem is with restricting it in this way. You seem to be stereotyping this thread into a 'we like immigrants' versus 'we hate immigrants' one. All I am arguing for is a logical restriction of a loophole in the citizenship system. Once that is done we should then decide a sensible immigration policy based on needs and skills. Yes we should let only the best and brightest in, as do e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America, etc, etc.

Trebor

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub

As for voting at the next election, while we are at it, let's leave the immigration issue until then as well.

well no, we are been giving the option to vote on this issue not on housing, bringing up housing in this discussion is irrelevant

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by silverside
If you agree that we have to restrict immigration for the greater good, then I don't see what your problem is with restricting it in this way. You seem to be stereotyping this thread into a 'we like immigrants' versus 'we hate immigrants' one. All I am arguing for is a logical restriction of a loophole in the citizenship system. Once that is done we should then decide a sensible immigration policy based on needs and skills. Yes we should let only the best and brightest in, as do e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America, etc, etc.

Ah, yes I was wondering when the words logical and sensible would raise their heads.

No stereotyping here, Silverside. I merely dislike sloppy thinking on this subject in particular. I object to it being restricted in this way because it is using a JCB to smash a walnut.

There is no loophole, there was no loophole until this week when the Mullah made his announcement. I agree that we should have a debate on immigration but not one prefaced on the idea that there are people "abusing our immigration system" type of argument.

MadsL

Originally posted by Phil_321
Hey madsl here's your answers:
1. They are not taking jobs, but taking lots of cash from the exchequer.

Really - maybe that's because the asylum process is taking too long. Twenty euro a week will kill us huh?


2. We have enough diversity. Take a look at the problems Britain is experiencing with the muslims who never properly integrated into thier society. That's where we could be in a few decades.

ROFLMOA...enough diversity...You are living under a rock!
Actually, if you read any other paper than the latest BECKS tabloids- you would find that given the degree of multiculturalism in Britain it is actually very well integrated. Ever thought the fault might lie with Britains being intolerant rather than Muslims being unwilling to integrate.



3. So you think we should take them so as to have an underclass to do our dirty work? Now that's racist.

Providing work to someone is racist? Interesting point of view. We have an underclass at the moment, trouble is most of them want to do needle drugs and steal cars...I'll swap for an underclass that wants to earn a decent wage.

4. I agree, that's the type of people we need. We don't need heavily pregnant women looking to exploit a constitutional loophole, and people looking to live off the social welfare, we the public have to provide.

But any Irish guy that doesn't want to work, or even look for work...we will house him and his family..ok, I understand now.

silverside

but i think it is obvious that there are people trying to abuse the system.

I think it is only politically correct wishy washy thinking that denies there is a problem when there are thousands of people coming here late in pregnancy mainly so that their child can have citizenship.

Call me racist, naive, gullible, whatever, but it's as plain as day to me, and you won't easily convince me otherwise.

Phil_321

And that's what this policy is about. Stopping the abuse of the system. It's not about kicking out all the immigrants and refusing to take any more in.

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by silverside
but i think it is obvious that there are people trying to abuse the system.

Call me racist, naive, gullible, whatever, but it's as plain as day to me, and you won't easily convince me otherwise.

Where's the evidence of abuse? Can the Dept of Social Affairs tell you this? Can the Dept of Justice?

I may not be able to convince you otherwise but if you are happy to persist with these frankly silly arguments that you may have read on p9 of last weeks Daily Star then fair dues, keep going with it.

Have you given up then?

Trebor

i'll admit that women are coming here pregnant in order to get citizenship for their child but that does not tell us how much is being spent on providing these people with social welfare and how many of them are getting it.

silverside

No I am going on the same statistics that have appeared repetedly in this thread.

c 25% of dublin births to non nationals
>50% of female asylum seekers pregnant on arrival

official government statistics, not daily star propaganda.

Phil_321

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub
Where's the evidence of abuse? Can the Dept of Social Affairs tell you this? Can the Dept of Justice?

Again, 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. Does this not sound like abuse to you?

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub

I may not be able to convince you otherwise but if you are happy to persist with these frankly silly arguments that you may have read on p9 of last weeks Daily Star then fair dues, keep going with it.

Have you given up then?

Nice superiority complex you have going there Eoin. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're tabloid readers.

Trebor

Originally posted by Phil_321
Again, 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. Does this not sound like abuse to you?

how many asylum seekers though? if we are talking 60% of 100 thats not much, if its 60% of 10000, that's different.

i agree it should be closed off but people here seem to think that there is alot of abuse of the social welfare system going on. can anyone give figures of how much this is costing? or is that just the justification people are using to close the loophole?

MadsL

Here's an interesting gem for you. Last year there were more female immigrants that arrived here (pregnant or not) from the EU and the USA, than the rest of the world put together.

UK 6000
US 2300
EU 4700

Total 14000 female immigrants.

Total rest of the world 11700


Flood of 'citizenship tourists' me hole.

Source

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by Phil_321
Again, 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. Does this not sound like abuse to you?

Nice superiority complex you have going there Eoin. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're tabloid readers.

If that sounded superior then I agopolise, it was not meant that way. Anyway, its not so complex

As for those figures, do you believe everything the government puts in a press release in support of its own agenda? Three years ago, there was a press release which announced almost 50,000 new affordable houses to be built on ststae land. Where are they?

Female asylum seekers pregnant at the time of application? For what period? When did the figures begin to be collected and when did they cease to be collected? If abuse is being pregnant then let's get the dictionary out!

There may well be some women presenting themselves late in their preganancies for asylum applications but since when does this constitute abuse? Whould we be abusing our own Constitution to punish pregnant women? (notwithstanding the abortion debacles of course) Are there not other measures possible?

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by MadsL
UK 6000
US 2300
EU 4700

Total 14000 female immigrants.

Total rest of the world 11700


Flood of 'citizenship tourists' me hole.

Thank you MadsL. For bringing some perspective on the whole debate here. However, how many of that number abused the system? Was it technical abuse or self-abuse?

Phil_321

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub
If that sounded superior then I agopolise, it was not meant that way. Anyway, its not so complex

As for those figures, do you believe everything the government puts in a press release in support of its own agenda? Three years ago, there was a press release which announced almost 50,000 new affordable houses to be built on ststae land. Where are they?

So what, that figure was a promise, and like most government promises it was broken.
The figures I gave you are facts not promises or predications.

Female asylum seekers pregnant at the time of application? For what period? When did the figures begin to be collected and when did they cease to be collected? If abuse is being pregnant then let's get the dictionary out!

Pregnant at time of application means exactly that.

There may well be some women presenting themselves late in their preganancies for asylum applications but since when does this constitute abuse? Whould we be abusing our own Constitution to punish pregnant women? (notwithstanding the abortion debacles of course) Are there not other measures possible?

Ah for ffs. What kind of argument is that. Do you honestly think that women arriving late in pregnancy, obviously to give birth in Ireland, is not an abuse of our immigration system?

MadsL

I will NOT say it AGAIN...

NON NATIONAL does not mean...

1. Asylum seeker
2. Scrounger
3. Terrorist (more likely to be a long-term citizen )
4. Illegal alien
5. Refugee
6. Any other nasty little prejudice you have locked away in that tiny mind.

Take those gvt figures on the number of non-national births and divide by three
THAT is approx the number of non-EEC nationals we are really talking about.

I will do serious damage to the next moron who starts whittering about non-nationals...

capistrano

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. 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.

I tired hearing the USA be quoted as an example. It's not a problem in the USA because they'll deport you at the airport. Not like here where you are automatically allowed in and you application for asylum is assessed, which takes months, plenty of time to have that baby.

It isn't an issue for poor countries because they're not likely to attract "citizenship tourists". Indeed, it hasn't be a problem thus far for Ireland.

The other countries you mentioned, like New Zealand, are so remote that they're not likely to have any asylum seekers turning up on their shores.

As soon as it appears that people start abusing the citizenship at birth rules, countires change the law. Both UK and Australia have done so.

Trebor

just curious, as we have a shortage of people in almost all industries does that mean that if we do get a proper immigration system that at the start we will end up letting almost anyone in anyway?

but of course this referendum is not about immigration it's about citizenship.

if it goes ahead people born here won't become a citizen unless parent is. this will not cause deportations. if you are not a citizen at the moment and your work visa expires or is not renued how does this effect you?

capistrano

Originally posted by MadsL
Take those gvt figures on the number of non-national births and divide by three
THAT is approx the number of non-EEC nationals we are really talking about.

I will do serious damage to the next moron who starts whittering about non-nationals...

I don't agree with your "divide by three" hypothesis there, MadsL. Most EU citizens will go back to their own countries to have their children. They can always come back to Ireland if they want. It's not like we have the best health care system in the EU, now is it?

So when people talk of non-national births, I think it is fair to assume that most are also non-EU.

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by Trebor
but of course this referendum is not about immigration it's about citizenship.

if it goes ahead people born here won't become a citizen unless parent is. this will not cause deportations. if you are not a citizen at the moment and your work visa expires or is not renued how does this effect you?

Citizenship is linked with immigration BTW. If you separate the two, it becomes a meaningless and abstract discussion about the nature of citizenship.

"If it goes ahead" suggests to me that we have little to say in the matter: vote. If your permit expires and you do not renew, your employer ought to be asking questions and hopefully, extending your contract and encouraging you to renew the visa

IMHO

MadsL

I'm seriously concerned that this will affect the children of non-EEC/Irish unmarried couples. Imagine an American has a child with an Irish girl. Kid gets citizenship naturally enough. Then Father loses job and work permit. Bye bye dad. Traumatised kid. Great.

Don't think this wont happen. Last year a Russian girl was deported even though she was MARRIED to an Irish citizen.

capistrano

Originally posted by MadsL
I'm seriously concerned that this will affect the children of non-EEC/Irish unmarried couples. Imagine an American has a child with an Irish girl. Kid gets citizenship naturally enough. Then Father loses job and work permit. Bye bye dad. Traumatised kid. Great.

Don't think this wont happen. Last year a Russian girl was deported even though she was MARRIED to an Irish citizen.

Well, they should get married then. We need some rules!

I don't understrand the russian girl case. My sister married an american and he can get Irish citizen ship immediately if he wants. There must be more to it than you say.

Trebor

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub
Citizenship is linked with immigration BTW. If you separate the two, it becomes a meaningless and abstract discussion about the nature of citizenship.

"If it goes ahead" suggests to me that we have little to say in the matter: vote. If your permit expires and you do not renew, your employer ought to be asking questions and hopefully, extending your contract and encouraging you to renew the visa

IMHO

how is it linked? you are either a citizen or an immigrant. after spending enough time as an immigrant you can apply to become a citizen. so how does changing giving children right of citizenship effect immigration? if the parents are not allowed to stay as per judge ruling then they must be deported, kid can come back any time with irish passport.

MadsL

Originally posted by capistrano
I don't agree with your "divide by three" hypothesis there, MadsL. Most EU citizens will go back to their own countries to have their children. They can always come back to Ireland if they want. It's not like we have the best health care system in the EU, now is it?

So when people talk of non-national births, I think it is fair to assume that most are also non-EU.

Over a third (35 per cent) of immigrants are nationals of countries
other than the EU and USA, while the same percentage of immigrants
are returning Irish Nationals. (See Table 7)

Source CSO

link

Therefore just over a third of immigrants are non-EEC nationals...

Most EU citizens will go back to their own countries to have their children.

Did you make that up or is that just 'a feeling'!!?? I didn't - in fact we came here when my gf was pregnant. Other EU friends of mine have stayed to have kids.