Immigration Referendum

capistrano

Originally posted by corley
So at 20:45 my points are "complete hogwash", and you can't respond because you're using your PDA, yet at 22:37 you managed to (using your PDA - or some other system) construct a (on boards.ie) 9-line response to someone else's post.

Don't take it personally. That was 2 hours later and I was backat my PC. I think, at this stage I've given responses to all the arguments and now it the same points that keep coming up.

As regards your American friend, I guess she has an Irish grandparent. This rule is valid because Irish parents can be working abroad and have a child. This child should have the right to be an Irish citizen. Going back one more generation to grandparents is just an extra bit of insurance.

If you grandparent was Irish, and befoe them they were Irish for a thousand genrations then I think it's fair enough that you should have some claim to Irish citizenship.

Victor

Originally posted by Phil_321
And can someone please tell me why should we have a different policy on this issue than the other members of the EU? [/B]

Because we are an independent country?

Phil_321

Originally posted by Victor
Because we are an independent country?

We are an independant country that is a member of the European Union. That's why we're using the Euro instead of Punts. Plus that's not really a reason, are you saying we should have this policy just because we are an indepandant state? Give me a practical reason why we should have a different policy than our fellow EU members.

And what's the point of having a European Union if you take this attitude? Our policy on this issue has more effect on the other member states than health, transport policies, etc... as people are using Irish citizenship to make themselves(or their children) European citizens.

capistrano

Originally posted by Victor
Because we are an independent country?

That's why we CAN have, not why we SHOULD have.

By having different citizenship rules we encourage "citizenship tourism".

corley

Originally posted by capistrano
Don't take it personally. That was 2 hours later and I was backat my PC. I think, at this stage I've given responses to all the arguments and now it the same points that keep coming up.

I'm not taking it personally - I just feel that if arguments are raised they should be addressed. You have still not responded to the arguments I made in my earlier post.

capistrano

Ok, corley, I'll respond you your points:

In the case of Mexicans entering the US they are clearly economic migrants. In the case of people seeking asylum in Ireland many are coming from countries with oppresive regimes where their lives are in danger.

Wrong. People seeing asylum here are also economic migrants. This is borne out by the fact of how few of their cases are upheld. Romania and Nigeria are democracies.

Ireland has failed to implement an immigration policy and is failing to properly operate an asylum policy.

Agreed.

At the end of the day this referendum is a political stunt. It will boost voter turnout which would be good for the Government (FF typically does badly in local/European elections because a significant percentage of their voters usually don't bother to come out and vote.)[/QUTOE]
High voter turnout is a good thing - more people give their say. Obviously you'd prefer that only those who agree with you vote. That's not democracy.

It also puts the opposition parties in a very tricky situation. For instance, I would imagine that a lot of Sinn Fein's voters would support the referendum while I would be very surprised if Sinn Fein as a party were to do anything else but call for a "No" vote.

Anything that shows up SF's sickening hypocrisy is a good thing.

This is political opportunism at its worst. Particularly when official statistics show that the number of racist attacks in Ireland increases at election time. To hold the referendum on the same day as an election is totally irresponsible.

Having it on it's own day would be worse. Then it really would be a "racist refendum", where there are not other issues to think about. Turnout would be very low, which distorts the result.

On balance, I think that holding the 3 pols on the same day makes a lot of sense. More people will come out and vote, the race issue will receive less attention and it obviously saves the state money.

So, there you go, all your points answered. Happy now?

corley

Originally posted by capistrano
Ok, corley, I'll respond you your points:

Wrong. People seeing asylum here are also economic migrants. This is borne out by the fact of how few of their cases are upheld. Romania and Nigeria are democracies.

Thanks for getting back to me. It's true that some people who are seeking asylum here are economic migrants (and this is partly due to the fact that we have failed to implement an immigration policy). Others are genuinely here because they fear persecution. While some countries may be nominally democracies that doesn't mean that human rights are respected in them. The recent attempt to stone a woman to death after she had become pregnant as a result of a rape in Nigeria demonstrates that there are genuine reasons why people may want to flee from these countries.


Anything that shows up SF's sickening hypocrisy is a good thing.
[/QUOTE]

I fully agree with what you say about SF's hypocrisy but in my opinion holding a highly charged referendum like this is not the way to do that.


Having it on it's own day would be worse. Then it really would be a "racist refendum", where there are not other issues to think about. Turnout would be very low, which distorts the result.

On balance, I think that holding the 3 pols on the same day makes a lot of sense. More people will come out and vote, the race issue will receive less attention and it obviously saves the state money.

So, there you go, all your points answered. Happy now? [/QUOTE]

I think you're failing to get my point - this referendum is actually unnecessary as the Supreme Court in the L & O case stated that there was no automatic right to residency of Irish-born children whose parents are non-nationals. Thus the parents could be deported and to keep the family together the Irish-born children are deported aswell. This is happening at the moment.

When Bertie Ahern was asked in the Dail about the possibility of a referendum on this issue several weeks ago he said there were no plans for such a referendum. Now as the election draws nearer they've decided to run with it - precisely because it will create difficulties for the opposition and get a certain type of voter out to vote who normally wouldn't have bothered for local/European elections. Don't just take my word for it - even yesterday's Sunday Independent (not a paper I would normally agree with) was describing this referendum as a political stunt.

arcadegame2004

" It's true that some people who are seeking asylum here are economic migrants (and this is partly due to the fact that we have failed to implement an immigration policy). Others are genuinely here because they fear persecution. " says Corley.

Corley, even supposing some of the asylum-seekers are fleeing persecution, how does that justify them not staying in the first EU state they enter, as required under the Dublin Convention 1981? Are you seriously saying that after enterring the EU, they remained in danger and only reached safety 6 EU countries later upon crossing the NI border into the Republic (as 80% of asylum-seekers arriving here are doing)? This defies credibility.

There are many stories of asylum-seekers claiming social-welfare on both sides of the border and this is unacceptable.

arcadegame2004

"this referendum is actually unnecessary as the Supreme Court in the L & O case stated that there was no automatic right to residency of Irish-born children whose parents are non-nationals. Thus the parents could be deported and to keep the family together the Irish-born children are deported aswell. This is happening at the moment. "

Wrong Corley. Over 8,000 asylum-seekers are still arriving here look at last years' figures. There is obviously still a feeling among many asylum-seekers and would be asylum-seekers that having an "Irish" baby will tilt the scales in their favour when it comes to deciding whether or not they will get Irish citizenship. You point out that more are being deported now than in previous years but that still amounts to a pathetic 5% or so of the total number coming here and when you consider that democratic Romania and Nigeria constitute the majority of countries of origin of these people, it is clear that Dept. of Justice estimates that 90% are bogus are correct. If women in Muslim areas of Nigeria fear circumcision then they can flee to the Christian south or else to another EU state but the Dublin Convention 1981 is clear:An asylum-seeker can only claim asylum in the first EU state they enter. This rule is being blatently defied. They cannot claim to be claiming asylum in 6 different EU states due to fear of persecution

If I was genuinely fleeing persecution then I would stay in the first EU state I entered. If I went from one EU state to another then my motive would definitely be economic. We are already letting enough people here on economic-grounds via the work-permit system. We have let around 180,000 people here already under that system. If people want to get here for economic reasons then let them apply for a work-permit, but do not let them abuse the asylum-system when there is clearly no possibility that there claim can be genuine. Yes, NO possibility. Because even if they are fleeing persecution the Dublin Convention 1981 requires them to claim for asylum in the FIRST EU country of entry. That COULD NOT POSSIBLY be Ireland. You know it. I know it. The dogs in the street know it.

Trebor

Originally posted by corley
I think you're failing to get my point - this referendum is actually unnecessary as the Supreme Court in the L & O case stated that there was no automatic right to residency of Irish-born children whose parents are non-nationals. Thus the parents could be deported and to keep the family together the Irish-born children are deported aswell. This is happening at the moment.

how is it unnecessary? if it is not changed those children can then come back when they are older or their children could come back in 40 years. this will lead to total uncontrolled immigration of generations of people who have had no connection to this country other than they had a father born here.

capistrano

Originally posted by corley
The recent attempt to stone a woman to death after she had become pregnant as a result of a rape in Nigeria demonstrates that there are genuine reasons why people may want to flee from these countries.

The woman in question was not raped. She had a realtionship with a man outside wedlock, which under Sharia law is a crime. But due process wound its way and the Nigerian supreme court thre out the sentence. So all's well that ends well.

capistrano

Originally posted by corley
I think you're failing to get my point - this referendum is actually unnecessary as the Supreme Court in the L & O case stated that there was no automatic right to residency of Irish-born children whose parents are non-nationals.

But the message hasn't got through. The number of pregnact asylum-seekers hasn't fallen since the supreme court ruling.

Obviously people still see merit by having a child who is an Irish citizen, even if the parents have no automatic right to stay in Ireland. I have to say, I feel the same if I were them.

PHB

If a mother is willing to risk travelling in the second and third trimester, you don't think theres a valid reason for it?

Our system is a joke, this won't fix it. It'll just make it "go away" and we wo still won't be helping the people that we need helping

silverside

no because a lot of them were living in england and just coming over so their baby gets a passport and going straight back to england again.

capistrano

Originally posted by PHB
If a mother is willing to risk travelling in the second and third trimester, you don't think theres a valid reason for it?

Our system is a joke, this won't fix it. It'll just make it "go away" and we wo still won't be helping the people that we need helping

Oh Jebus! There isn't much risk in a woman travelling in the second and most of the third trimester.

And of course there's a "valid reason" for the travel - she want the kid to have EU citizenship.

Nobody is saying this change will sort out the immigration/asylum mess. It will simply close off a citizenship loophole.

corley

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"this referendum is actually unnecessary as the Supreme Court in the L & O case stated that there was no automatic right to residency of Irish-born children whose parents are non-nationals. Thus the parents could be deported and to keep the family together the Irish-born children are deported aswell. This is happening at the moment. "

Wrong Corley. Over 8,000 asylum-seekers are still arriving here look at last years' figures. There is obviously still a feeling among many asylum-seekers and would be asylum-seekers that having an "Irish" baby will tilt the scales in their favour when it comes to deciding whether or not they will get Irish citizenship.

The decision in the L&O case was made on January 23rd of this year - so obviously it won't have had an impact on last year's figures.

arcadegame2004

Sorry I thought you were referring to the Supreme Court Judgement that said that the parents of a child born in Ireland who were asylum-seekers were not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, which was definitely last year.

corley

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sorry I thought you were referring to the Supreme Court Judgement that said that the parents of a child born in Ireland who were asylum-seekers were not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, which was definitely last year.

Actually it's me who should apologise, you are correct - the L&O case was last year. However, it does take time for word of such changes to filter out and it's understandable that people will continue to try to come here particularly if they already have relatives here (which is partly due to our lack of a immigration policy). Ultimately, Ireland is trying to have it both ways by not having a fair immigration policy and then not properly implementing an asylum policy.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/3010713?view=Eircomnet

Morrison terms poll on citizenship 'dangerous'
From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 14th April, 2004

A former United States congressman, Mr Bruce Morrison, who secured 48,000 work permits for Irish people living illegally in the United States in the 1980s, has condemned the Government's proposed citizenship referendum as "dangerous".

Describing the Republic's asylum and immigration system as "hopelessly inefficient", he said: "There is so much work to be done to bring together a coherent immigration policy in Ireland rather than jump into a referendum."

Voters, he said, were now being asked to tighten up citizenship laws even though the existing regulations, including speedy deportations of illegals, were not being properly enforced.

"To ask them to decide in a vacuum with inadequate enforcement of existing laws is to invite them to exercise their worst instincts about newcomers rather than their best. That is what I think is dangerous about the referendum," Mr Morrison said.

The warning from the former congressman, who has in the past been an influential friend of Ireland on Capitol Hill, will come as an embarrassment to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr McDowell.

Many of the 48,000 who qualified for "Morrison visas" eventually secured United States citizenship, he told The Irish Times yesterday in a telephone interview from his Maryland office.

"Not an insignificant number have gone back to Ireland. They arrived in the early to mid-80s when the Irish economy was very poor, with high unemployment. Now Ireland is a great place," he said.

Immigrants were now attracted by that success, he said. "Ireland is a destination country. It needs to manage the challenges and to do it in an appropriate way that reflects appropriate values."

Under the Government's proposal, citizenship would not be granted to a child unless one of its parents had been legally resident on the island of Ireland for three of the four years prior to its birth.

"How is it to be defined precisely? Once you start doing that you create doubt. Perhaps a parent was entitled to work in Factory A, but not in Factory B. Will all of that be questioned? If the child gets into trouble will they now be deported? Once you try to define it you breed a kind of doubt that is unnecessary," said Mr Morrison, who speaks regularly on international immigration issues.

"The alternative to birthright citizenship is citizenship based upon ethnicity with a set of technical rules that leave open the possibility that people born and brought up in Ireland are not citizens."

Victor

This is one that oculd come back to bite FF in the local elections - p'ing off 200,000 people who can vote in the local elections but who would lose under the referendum.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0413/citizenship.html

Lack of voting rights information criticised

13 April 2004 22:08
Two of the five non-Irish nationals who are Independent candidates in the forthcoming local elections have criticised the Government for its failure to inform immigrants of their right to vote on 11 June.

Benedicta Attoh, who is running in Dundalk, has said non-Irish nationals there have not been able to register to vote because gardaí will not accept their green cards as a form of ID.

The Irish Refugee Council and Integrating Ireland have said that both the Department of Justice and the Department of the Environment have failed to respond to their requests to clarify how non-nationals can register to vote.


Dr Taiwo Mattew, who is running in Ennis, has called on all non-Irish nationals to exercise their right to vote.

The candidates also criticised the Government for rushing the referendum on citizenship which is due to take place on the same day as the local and European elections.

arcadegame2004

I disagree because you forget the large number of EU-nationals living in Ireland that have historically been allowed, under EU law, to vote in our local-elections and of course European elections. The majority of non-nationals probably fall into this category.

arcadegame2004

The Govt's proposals won't affect the rights of EU-nationals to vote in local and EU elections.

arcadegame2004

"Morrison terms poll on citizenship 'dangerous' ".

Well it's okay for him to talk, coming from a huge country with a staggeringly large tax-base that can easily afford to pay for all these immigrants. Anyhow, even their provision for the awarding of citizenship for the children of non-nationals born in the US is not enshrined in their Constitution, unlike ours. Also, remember that the nature of US identity isn't really the same as that of European identity. European nations - and I do not mean this as a racist point - tend to define their identity largely on the basis of ethnicity, whereas the US, where nearly everyone is of colonial or immigrant descent, does not. As such, there is a concern in European states of a possible erosion of national identity that there isn't in the US. For the reasons explained above then , Morrison etc. don't see things quite the way we do, though I respect his right to his opinion.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I disagree because you forget the large number of EU-nationals living in Ireland that have historically been allowed, under EU law, to vote in our local-elections and of course European elections. The majority of non-nationals probably fall into this category.

However, previously they weren't of a make or break quantity - many seats are decided on a few votes and FF are stacking immigrant votes against them by having this referendum.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The Govt's proposals won't affect the rights of EU-nationals to vote in local and EU elections.

No one is saying that. Why are you?

arcadegame2004

Because it wasn't clear you realised that.

rander00

If i vote yes in this poll ,, am i saying they should have automatic citizenship if a child is born??

I wanna be clear on that. I vote no, if the above assumption is correct. Out the fook with them, i say. Out the fook.

arcadegame2004

Rander , no. If you vote Yes, you are saying that being born in Ireland does NOT automatically mean getting Irish citizenship. If this referendum passes, you only get automatic-citizenship if one of your parents is Irish.

Furthermore, an asylum-seeker will not be allowed to apply for citizenship unless they have lived here for 3 years.

capistrano

Originally posted by rander00
If i vote yes in this poll ,, am i saying they should have automatic citizenship if a child is born??

I wanna be clear on that. I vote no, if the above assumption is correct. Out the fook with them, i say. Out the fook.

I think this must be a wind up.

But if it's not... "Out the fook with" you, I say.

Chaz

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Rander , no. If you vote Yes, you are saying that being born in Ireland does NOT automatically mean getting Irish citizenship. If this referendum passes, you only get automatic-citizenship if one of your parents is Irish.

Furthermore, an asylum-seeker will not be allowed to apply for citizenship unless they have lived here for 3 years.

3 Years? I understood it to be 5 for Naturalisation.

Villain

Originally posted by capistrano
I think this must be a wind up.

But if it's not... "Out the fook with" you, I say.

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