Should Citizenship referendum be delayed?

arcadegame2004

Do you agree with calls from CORI (Council of Religious of Ireland), the Irish Catholic Bishops "Irish Commission fro Justice and Peace", as well as the Irish Refugee Council and others for a delay in the Citizenship referendum?

I don't agree with this at all. I feel a delay i nthe referendum will only lead to further abuse of the existing system and Irish taxpayers' money. What do you think though?

AngelofFire

Yes it should be delayed. that will give us time to debate the issue. There has been no facts or figures to support the governments argument that the influx of immigrants is having negative social and economic affects all we are getting is political jargon stating that there is abuse of our constitution. the government are just using refugees as a smokescreen the problems with the health service are caused by the negligance of the FF/PD government not refugees. if the government cared about the health service they wouldnt of abandoned their promise to end waiting lists within two years. The citizenship refurendrum is just the height of cynicism they are playing the racism card just to get support.

arcadegame2004

It is costing the taxpayer 350 million euro to pay for these asylum-seekers according to Minister McDowell. He also told the Dail in the recent debaye on the Citizenship referendum that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in the Republic of Ireland last year were pregnant on arrival here. The question has to be asked: why? Why such a large percentage? In numerical terms, official Dept. of Justice figures indicate that 1,893 pregnant women claimed asylum last year (pregnant at the time of making the claim). That is a LOT more than the 400 the "No" side keep harping-on about - a figure derived by twisting the definition of citizenship-tourist to only mean births in Dublin to women arriving in Ireland 32 weeks or later into pregnancy.

Our 5% deportation rate last year (of all asylum-seekers coming here in 2003) means that it would take 120 years to deport the 95% of asylum-seekers estimated to be illegals(!) so the cost to the taxpayer is only going to get much worse and be continuous for the long-term unless we crack down hard on the flagrant defiance of the 1981 Dublin Convention (only allowed to claim asylum in the 1st EU country of entry) and on those factors making Ireland disproportionately more attractive to illegal-immigrants than most other EU states - a fact proven by the fact that the Republic of Ireland ranks joint-second with Belgium in terms of numbers of asylum-seekers taken in per head of population. The free house and our citizenship laws are clearly the primary factors in this attraction.

So we should vote "Yes" on June 11th. 147 out of 187 countries in the world do not allow automatic citizenship solely on the basis of birth. So are they all racist?

chewy

apart from economic effects

do you arcade think that enough people know enough about the situation to vote in an educated way?

i don't

Cork

I have great faith in the intelligence of the Irish people to comprehend the issues.

No delay is needed.

arcadegame2004

Chewy, the problem of citizenship-tourism has been known about for 6 years. How long more time do you want? Or are you just afraid of the result of such a referendum?

vorbis

tbh this arguing for a delay is one of the most pointless issues ever raised by any party. Theres nothing particularly complex about the referendum. What exactly would people need the extra time for before deciding which way to vote?

arcadegame2004

Actually, Chewy, the referendum campaign for the GFA was shorter (just one month long).

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Chewy, the problem of citizenship-tourism has been known about for 6 years. How long more time do you want?

But it is (not) being debated for only the last month or two. The absense of information from the minister is startling.

It would also appear the majority of people don't want the referendum at this time.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0515/localelections.html

FF & FG set to lose seats: poll
15 May 2004 20:50

...

It further suggests that two thirds of voters want the referendum on citizenship postponed to allow for further debate.

The Red C poll, in tomorrow's Sunday Business Post, was based on telephone interviews with a weighted sample of more than 1,000 voters throughout the State last Monday and Tuesday.

.....

On the Citizenship Referendum, 55% of those polled say they would vote in favour. However, two thirds of voters - 67% - think the vote should be postponed to allow for more debate.

arcadegame2004

"But it is (not) being debated for only the last month or two. The absense of information from the minister is startling.

It would also appear the majority of people don't want the referendum at this time."

(Victor)


Victor, the wording of the amendment is already in the public domain. Having read it, it is clear to me that you don't exactly need a degree in Law to understand what it's saying. The GFA was far more complicated than this and we had less time to debate it. Remember the GFA was agreed on April 10th 1998, with the referendum held on May 11th. Were you complaining about lack of time for debate back then?

chewy

look the gfa was rushed and it resulted in this....

i think the gfa isn't a good example of referenda it was such a long process in one way.... a couple of hundred years

is it not normal to have a white paper and all that....

i don't think the actually figures are clear to everyone

arcadegame2004

"look the gfa was rushed and it resulted in this...." (Chewy)

So you admit there is a loophole that is being abused? Thank you...

MrPudding

God Arcadegame2004 you actually are one of the most poisonous little sh1ts I have ever had the misfortune to meet. I really want to say a loy of other things but I really shouldn't. Your at....

Fcuk, I can't really be bothered, may you live in interesting times and may your sister fall for a non national.

MrP

gandalf

One week ban for personal abuse.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It is costing the taxpayer 350 million euro to pay for these asylum-seekers according to Minister McDowell.

the government like making figures like 350 million look like an awful lot of money. its not its about 1% of the exchequer. considering these people make up only 2% of the population its not an awful lot. we spend more offering grants to multinational corporations. Nobody complains about foregin big business getting money yet it seems that foregin people should not be entitled to it.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"look the gfa was rushed and it resulted in this...." (Chewy)

So you admit there is a loophole that is being abused? Thank you...

I think the smiley at the end of chewy's first line reads like a full paragraph but in case you missed it I'll work through the logic as he doesn't appear to have posted back (prehaps assuming we'd all read the little smiley) here this morning and mightn't have the patience to take it slow.

What chewy appears to be saying is that if one thinks that there's a problem with the amendments to articles 2 and 3 that has resulted in another referendum having to be called to fix it, then there's a possibility that the rushed nature of that referendum didn't give people time to consider the future posibilities or the legal drafters time to do likewise. Even if one doesn't think there's a problem with articles 2 and 3 the rushed nature of the last referendum has resulted in people waxing rather unlyrical and everyone having to put up with it.

Agree or don't agree but rushing in like an aggravated mother with a less than snappy one-liner on its own isn't making the more sane posters (ie me) any the more inclined to consider the case. It only works if its funny.

Originally posted by AngelofFire
the government like making figures like 350 million look like an awful lot of money. its not its about 1% of the exchequer. considering these people make up only 2% of the population its not an awful lot. we spend more offering grants to multinational corporations. Nobody complains about foregin big business getting money yet it seems that foregin people should not be entitled to it.

I disagree, the day one thinks €350m is not a lot of money is the day to step down from the management job.
In my view this country needs good immigration law, we need to be able to determine who should come in and why.
It would be remiss of us to leave the door wide open for asylum seekers to take root here when it's obvious that by choosing the furthest outpost of the E.U, they have chosen the one with probably the most lax asylum procedures or the most economic possibilities.
That suggests that there is an underlying motive ie economic migration along with their asylum issue.

It may be a small problem at the moment but its not one that we can afford, certainly not at a cost of €350m or at any potential higher cost if loopholes aren't closed.Closing one small loophole where an asylum seeker can get citizenship by default should in no way affect their potential case for receiving valid asylum, that indeed is not an issue at all from what I can see.

As regards the timing issue, six or eight weeks is plenty to discuss the pro's and cons of the proposal, it's not rocket science...
As it stands I'll be voting yes for the reasons stated and for the betterment of the coffers of the country in which I pay my taxes.

Tommy Vercetti

I believe this referendum is unnecessary and should not take place at all. The links between the so-called loophole in our constitution and the magic €350m figure are non-existant in the first place. That amount may have been spent overall on asylum-seekers but that is not the amount of money that will be "saved" by voting "Yes". Preventing a relatively tiny number of people (yes, they are human beings, not just a statistic to post on the internet) from claiming Irish citizenship is not going to make our country a better place for everyone. The Government, and in particular the Minister for Justice, will use the expected "Yes" vote as a mandate to push through further right-wing legislation. This is the same minister whose response to drunken crime is to threaten to prosecute bar staff who serve people who may be drunk.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
The Government, and in particular the Minister for Justice, will use the expected "Yes" vote as a mandate to push through further right-wing legislation. This is the same minister whose response to drunken crime is to threaten to prosecute bar staff who serve people who may be drunk.

It might be better if one came to a decision on this referendum on the issues involved around it rather than from a pre conceived notion of what the government who proposed it might have in their future plans.
Fine Gael support a yes vote in this referendum for instance don't they?
Would they be planning lots of right wing lesislation too if returned to power?

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Rock Climber

Fine Gael support a yes vote in this referendum for instance don't they?
Would they be planning lots of right wing lesislation too if returned to power?

I doubt they know what the word "planning" means.

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
(yes, they are human beings, not just a statistic to post on the internet) from claiming Irish citizenship is not going to make our country a better place for everyone.

It's not at all about the colour of their skin or their race.
Apart from what I said already, another way I look at it is this.
Any asylum claim is treated on the same merit as it is now if this referendum is passed, nobody is turned away unless their application has been deemed unsucessfull.

I'd like to see, all of this the subject of legislation, letting us through our elected representatives decide the criteria for entry to this country by people from outside the E.U to live and work here, in other words, let our immigration aparatus have it's guidelines and work within them.
Theres another issue too from what I can see...
Under the current regime I'd imagine even though the right to reside here( for the asylum seeking parent of a child born here ) has been overturned by a court case, a minor could come back here at 16 or 17 and invite all and sundry over to visit...then disappear and work illegally as has been the case for many illegal Irish in the states for yonks.
Theres potentially no limit to that in the future.

This country does not have the resources to cope with it, unlike the U.S.A, but it would of course be paradise for any employer that wanted to exploit these people and ultimately it would be legitimate workers who would lose out with lower wages and less jobs.

As an aside, I remember chatting with a taxi driver bringing me to Sydney Airport, he was from Jakarta.
He spoke some small talk about the weather and cricket and then he asked me what the social welfare system was like in Ireland and specifically what the unemployed get, he was looking into sending his family to Europe as things were sluggish.
Thats coincidental but interesting none the less.

chewy

thanks sceptre thats exactl what i was saying

Victor

Originally posted by Earthman
This country does not have the resources to cope with it, unlike the U.S.A, but it would of course be paradise for any employer that wanted to exploit these people and ultimately it would be legitimate workers who would lose out with lower wages and less jobs.

Employing people = less jobs ? :rolleyes:

Gurgle

So this Chinese woman they're making the big fuss about.
- If she had stayed in China, would she have been forced to have an abortion ?

That would (or at least should) make her a valid refugee applicant.
So she would have got to stay in EU even if this xenophobe referendum goes through.

Maybe if it was cancelled arcadegame2004 might stop whinging about his 350 million euro.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Gurgle
- If she had stayed in China, would she have been forced to have an abortion ?

That would (or at least should) make her a valid refugee applicant.
[/SIZE]

Can I suggest that establishing flight from China’s one child policy as grounds for asylum might be a little blinkered, not to say irresponsible?

Gurgle

originally posted by ishmael whale:
Can I suggest that establishing flight from China’s one child policy as grounds for asylum might be a little blinkered, not to say irresponsible?

Of course you can suggest it.

Equally, I can refute your suggestion;

Many people regard even elective abortion as murder. I cannot agree with any justification for mandatory abortion. This is persecution, entitling persecutee to asylum.

In Ireland, unborn children have the right to life. If the mother chooses to go to england for an abortion, her right to travel superceeds the child's right to life. Similarily, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, her right to life is the highest priority.

If we had an efficient asylum decision process, this woman could have been sent back to China pregnant and could have been forced to have an abortion.

So a Chinese foetus is not entitled to the same protection in Ireland as any other foetus becuase it does not have the right to life in its mother's country ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Gurgle
So a Chinese foetus is not entitled to the same protection in Ireland as any other foetus becuase it does not have the right to life in its mother's country ?

It does raise an interesting point.

If we say no, then the right to life for the unborn only applies to the right to life for the unborn with Irish parents. I mean...the implication is that foreigners lives are worth less in Ireland than Irish lives. Hardly a noble sentiment.

If we say yes, however, then surely we'll need another referendum to decide whether or not this should be the case, or else we have a new loophole, which while only applicable to nations with mandatory abortion (there's only one such nation, if memory serves) only limits us to what....the largest single population in the world?

jc

ishmael whale

As you have acknowledged yourself our ban on abortion is only a fig leaf that means such procedures can only be performed here in extraordinary circumstances, but significant numbers of Irish women freely travel abroad to obtain legal abortions elsewhere. So your question as to whether the Constitution provides a basis for an unborn child from abroad to claim asylum is a non starter. The Constitution does not even protect domestic foetuses (or is it foetii?).

Much as I enjoy a trip down memory lane I find the main recollection that comes to me from the debates around our (many) referenda on abortion is the capacity of people to hide from awkward truths by clinging to positions that achieve no practical good but seem irrefutably moral. We voted for a ban on abortion, but did little about the question of unwanted pregnancy.

Its just not feasible that up to 1.2 billion Chinese who may feel oppressed by the one child policy can be given asylum here. The planet is suffering from two problems – our opulent Western lifestyles and third world overpopulation. What you are advocating brings the two together, and I don’t see how speculating about the number of foetuses (or foetii) that can dance on the head of a pin addresses the implications of that.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
So your question as to whether the Constitution provides a basis for an unborn child from abroad to claim asylum is a non starter. The Constitution does not even protect domestic foetuses (or is it foetii?).

What I am saying is that our Constitution should protect foetuses equally. No more, no less.

At the moment, it protects the foetus as far as is possible without infringing on what are seen as equally important rights of the mother. Its a 50-50 call - no matter who's side we came down on, the other would lose a previously enshrined "right" to some degree.

However, to say that we can condemn an unborn to death by sending a pregnant woman back to the country where she came from is not trading one persons right against another. It is simply deciding that nationality should decide whether or not the unborn gets the right at all.

Imagine if two women were run down in the street, both while pregnant. One Irish, one foreign. Both lose their children, but are fine. Should our law treat the two cases differently? Should we say that one foetus deserves our protection, but the other doesn't???

The distinction is that refusing asylum to a Chinese woman who would be trying to save her childs life is most certainly not protecting anyone's rights. It is entirely seperate to weighing the rights of the mother against the rights of the child, which is the existant dichotomy you're referring to.

Much as I enjoy a trip down memory lane I find the main recollection that comes to me from the debates around our (many) referenda on abortion is the capacity of people to hide from awkward truths by clinging to positions that achieve no practical good but seem irrefutably moral.

Thats not quite what I'm driving at.

There is currently what is being protrayed as a loophole in Irish constitutional law which there is about to be a referendum on for no other reason than to ostensibly close said loophole.

The point I am making is that this logic also demands that we should close other loopholes - such as the right to life for the non-Irish unborn in Ireland.

The implcation is serious. If we say that we can deport someone and force them to return to a country where their unborn child will be aborted - regardless of the term in the pregnancy if I'm not mistaken (I believe in China its legal to do so up until the child has drawn its first breath, but I could be wrong) - then we are saying that the Irish government can choose to condemn an unborn child to death against the wishes of the mother because said child is not of Irish parentage.

Now, we won't send asylum seekers back to countries where their return will put their life in jeopardy, so why would we do it with the unborn?

Its just not feasible that up to 1.2 billion Chinese who may feel oppressed by the one child policy can be given asylum here.

No, it isn't. So what is the implcation if not that our "right to life of the unborn" is untenably at odds with our apparently-desired immigration policy. Seein as we are just about to have a referendum because our "right to citizenship" is untenably at odds with our apparently-desired immigration policy, does this not mean that we also need a referendum to avoid a new loophole?

What you are advocating brings the two together, and I don’t see how speculating about the number of foetuses (or foetii) that can dance on the head of a pin addresses the implications of that.

I'm not adcocating anything. I'm asking those that see the upcoming referendum as a necessary and good thing whether or not we should also either scrap rights for the unborn, or explicitly clarify it to only extend to Irish unborn, lest we find ourselves with another similar loophole. Surely its equally as necessary and equally as good a thing?

jc

ishmael whale

Bonkey

While I should have made it clearer, an element of confusion has been caused as my post is an answer to Gurgle’s rather than yours. However, with that clarification I might still comment on what seems to be your essential point, that the Constitution should protect all foetuses equally.

The Constitution does protect Irish and foreign foetuses equally, or at least equivalently. Neither can be aborted in Ireland, except in the same extraordinary circumstances. Equally, in much the same way an Irish woman cannot be restrained from leaving the state on the basis of a case taken on behalf of her unborn child, an unborn child cannot claim asylum here. The two situations are not identical, because an Irish person will hardly be seeking asylum in Ireland. But the need to close some putative loophole does not seem to arise in this case.

Gurgle

Originally posted by ishmael whale:
an unborn child cannot claim asylum here

But can't a mother clain asylum here for the protection of an unborn child ?

Anyway, we're floating way off topic here. I was only making the point that if the referendum on citizenship was passed this woman would (/should/could) have got temporary asylum here for the protection of her unborn child. Come to think of it, once the child drew breath, he is no longer in imminent danger in China.