Should Citizenship referendum be delayed?

ishmael whale

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

Look on it this way, a father can't make such a case to stop his unborn child being aborted abroad.

The key point is it's just not practical to make fleeing China's one child policy a valid ground for asylum.

Gurgle

Originally posted by ishmael whale[/i]:
Look on it this way, a father can't make such a case to stop his unborn child being aborted abroad.

I think it was a supreme court decision a couple of years ago that the mother's right to travel superceeded the child's right to life. The rights of the father do not come into it.

Originally posted by ishmael whale[/i]:
The key point is it's just not practical to make fleeing China's one child policy a valid ground for asylum

Why not ?

Are you suggesting that millions of Chinese women are going to have an unauthorised pregnancy so that they can come to Ireland to have the baby and then settle in the EU to live off the social welfare for the rest of their lives ?

And that is why we need a citizenship referendum ?

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Gurgle
I think it was a supreme court decision a couple of years ago that the mother's right to travel superceeded the child's right to life. The rights of the father do not come into it.

Yes, that's sort of my point.

Originally posted by Gurgle
Why not ?

Are you suggesting that millions of Chinese women are going to have an unauthorised pregnancy so that they can come to Ireland to have the baby and then settle in the EU to live off the social welfare for the rest of their lives ?

And that is why we need a citizenship referendum ?

Not exactly, and I reject the line about social welfare. But I am suggesting that the one child policy has caused a great deal of hardship for a great many people, and if was deemed to be a basis for a successful asylum application many millions would qualify. I don't see too many countries following this line so yes, it would make Ireland an extremely attractive destination.

But the main reason for a citizenship referendum is simply to close a loophole that allows the child of someone entering the country illegally to claim citizenship. The proposed referendum goes further than it needs to achieve this result, but its close enough for jazz.

Gurgle

How many of the non-nationals born here were also conceived here while the parents were waiting for their asylum applications to be processed ?

Anyone know if those figures are available ?

gubugirl

This referendum is about rubber stamping a piece of legislation that itself can be changed by the whim of any future government.
The proposed legislation is already a dangerous piece of meddling. But inserting a clause, as it does, that will allow future governments to change the supporting legislation it's currently grounded on is even more dangerous.

Tinkering with the constitution has gone far enough, but maybe never far enough for the likes of McDowell, who would claim to own it, if we'd let him.

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The two situations are not identical, because an Irish person will hardly be seeking asylum in Ireland.

Well a previously deported child of non-Irish parents, who is suffering persecution .....

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Victor
Well a previously deported child of non-Irish parents, who is suffering persecution .....

Interesting point, but can you apply for asylum in your own country? Surely the assumption is you can simply enter it. So presumably if an unaccompanied child who is an Irish citizen turned up fleeing persecution they would simply be admitted - they wouldn't even have to prove they were fleeing persecution. If they were accompanied by their non-national parents, however, presumably the parents would have to prove they had a case.

arcadegame2004

"This referendum is about rubber stamping a piece of legislation that itself can be changed by the whim of any future government.
The proposed legislation is already a dangerous piece of meddling. But inserting a clause, as it does, that will allow future governments to change the supporting legislation it's currently grounded on is even more dangerous." (gubugirl)

Well the rest of Europe passes citizenship laws that way. Is their position "dangerous"?

arcadegame2004

Also "gubugirl", the supposedly "dangerous" right of a national-parliament to pass laws on citizenship was already the case here in 1998. Was that "dangerous" too?

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Also "gubugirl", the supposedly "dangerous" right of a national-parliament to pass laws on citizenship was already the case here in 1998. Was that "dangerous" too?

I don't know what gubugirl might think but I was never a fan of the fact that the pre-1998 constitution guaranteed citizenship only to those who were previously citizens of Saorstát Eireann, reserving the right to grant or revoke citizenship of everyone else with the Oireachtas. I brought it up in the first thread on this referendum thing (eight or nine extra referendum threads ago):)

gubugirl

The right to citizenship of all persons born on the island of Ireland has been a fundamental right in Ireland since the first constitution of 1921, which specified that right. The 1937 constitution did not enunicate the right, but it remained a basic tenet of Irish law that was never contradicted by either legislature or the judiciary.

So to suggest that the 1998 Good Friday Agreement amendments to our constitution inserted a right that wasn't there before is simply wrong.

The 1998 amendment confirmed that those with the right to citizenship had a parallel enunciated right to be part of the Irish 'nation'.

Why do I think what's happening now is dangerous? Well, if you go from a situation where there's a basic fundamental right that exists above and beyond mere legislation to one where that right is curtailed by an amendment that rests on current or future supporting legislation, then that basic fundamental right can forever be further curtailed and fashioned by legislation. That leaves the door open for more Fuhrer McDowells to set still further limits on citizenship rights, without recourse back to the public via further constitutional amendments. I call that dangerous.

It's erroneous to compare us with civil law jurisdictions in Europe. Remember, they're not asking us to change our constitution (in fact, citizenship rights in EU member states are specifically left to those states to decide for themselves). The person asking us to change our constitution is a radical right lawyer representing a party that garners 3-4% of the popular vote in elections. Listen to his pronouncements - he likes admitting this was all his big idea and even, in the wake of the Chen case opinion (the Chinese woman), used the phrase "My decision" a number of times in claiming that the European Court's opinion confirmed that 'his decision' to hold a referendum was right.

gubugirl

But I suppose this is not on topic, as, as you might have guessed, my position is not that the referendum should be postponed, but that it shouldn't take place at all. So I guess I'll take my arguments to the other referendum topic from now on.

arcadegame2004

But gubugirl, you forget that the context changed completely in 1998 because Ireland was an unattractive destination for economic-migrants prior to then. The GFA referendum achieved such a scale of publicity internationally that the aspect of it constitutionally enshrining citizenship based solely on birth became much more widely-known. Also, the economic prosperity of modern Ireland meant that far more people come here to claim asylum than we have ever been used to since independence. Sometimes when contexts change, you have to change the Constitution to reflect that. Look where the US is still landed with outdated Constitutional provisions like the right to bear arms and where that has led e.g. Columbine.

Constitutions are not holy cows that must forever be left untouched. If our Constitution was not intended to ever be changed then the mechanisms for doing so would not be contained therein. Let's not make the mistake of going down the mistaken American route of thinking our Constitution is perfect and must forever remain unchanged.

Ellesmere

It would be a mistake to accept the constituition as writing in stone. Almost scripture that can not be changed. Look how attitudes like that has effected gun control in America. What do the 'No' side propose? A free for all for economic migrants? This referendum smacks of window dressing, what we need to do is toughen up our controls for immigration in this country.

gubugirl

arcadegame - The Celtic Tiger began much earlier than '98, and as regards your claim that "the GFA referendum achieved such a scale of publicity internationally that the aspect of it constitutionally enshrining citizenship based solely on birth became much more widely-known", well, I suggest you have an inflated view of the interest or knowledge of most of the world in this plot of land.

To the majority populations of the world, Ireland either does not feature on their world map at all, or is identified only by the words 'IRA' or 'Belfast'.

Not much has changed on that since, either, and most asylum seekers who end up here either do not come here as their country of first choice destination (difficult anyway since we're an island with very few international direct flights), arrive here not knowing where they are going, or are promised by smugglers or traffickers that they're going to the UK/Canada/wherever, and end up here.

I don't think constitutions should be set in stone, no more than you do. In fact I'd like to see the 1937 one entirely rewritten. My point was let's not insert clauses into the constitution that make it more open to the whims and interpretations of governments of the day. The final judge of the content of our basic law is the people, not the government or the courts, and amendments that are accompanied by enabling/supporting legislation, as this one is, remove that power from the people. The amendments carry in them the trojan horse that will hand the future determination of Irish citizenship not to its people, but to whichever government decides to change the law.

arcadegame2004

gubugirl, I do not accept your view that I am exaggerating the impact on the international media coverage of the GFA and GFA referendums on the knowledge of our citizenship law. This immigration issue evolves and as such, we must be able to adopt to it. A rigid requirement for future referenda to deal with citizenship ( a key plank of immigration-policy as it encourages asylum-seekers to come here ). Dail Eireann will regain its right to legislate on this issue (taken from it in 1998) and that is vital so that we dont have to be dragged out to the polls every time a government wants to make a decision on this area.

gubugirl

Dail Eireann never lost its right to legislate on this issue. In fact, the problem is that it has either comprehensively failed to introduce laws on the issue or the laws it has introduced have been kicked back by the courts because they were so badly conceived or drafted.

Dail Eireann can only legislate in line with the constitution and the superior courts have found recent legislation flawed. Instead of going back to the drawing board, lawyer McDowell just keeps on churning out more legal drivel, including this hastily conceived, misguided and shameful piece of politicking.

Look at our immigration policy - well, keep looking, 'cause we don't have one. We have no immigration legislation beyond the Aliens Act 1935 (and its amendments) and various recent McDowellesque immigration laws designed to set in place systems of deportation or exclusion or penalties on carriers for bringing in asylum seekers, but so far no legislation designed to put in place systems of immigration controlled by law.

And Arcadegame, you may not accept my view on international coverage of the GFA amendments but you don't have to. That's the beauty of free wills.

arcadegame2004

"Look at our immigration policy - well, keep looking, 'cause we don't have one. We have no immigration legislation beyond the Aliens Act 1935 (and its amendments) and various recent McDowellesque immigration laws designed to set in place systems of deportation or exclusion or penalties on carriers for bringing in asylum seekers, but so far no legislation designed to put in place systems of immigration controlled by law." (Gubugirl)

That is simply not true. The work-permits legislation has allowed 150,000 non-EU nationals to travel legally to Ireland to work. It includes safeguards to protect Irish people from losing their jobs to cheap labour, namely by saying that the prerequisite from the non-EU national getting to work here is that the authorities must be persuaded satisfactorily that no suitable Irish or EU citizens are available to do the job instead. Mary Harney introduced this legislation. And EU citizens are perfectly entitled under EU laws to travel to Ireland without restriction.

Allowing asylum-seekers to work would be a bad idea because they are already in this country. As such, them coming to Ireland would not be dependent on the safeguards pertaining to the work-permit system i.e. convincing the authorities that a suitable Irish or EU worker is unavailable. That is why I oppose allowing them to work here.

I'm sorry but the extent to which the Irish Government can legislate on the citizenship issue is severely constrained by the current Constitutional makeup from 1998. Prior to 1998, the Dail could pass laws on citizenship as it pleased. It was only when it was changed to give citizenship to EVERYONE born here that the mass-migration of thousands started. Otherwise, why hadn't it happened during the previous fifty years? They are economic migrants yet they are subverting our safeguards intended to protect Irish workers if they try to get a job here, because their availability for the job is not dependent on no suitable Irish candidates beign available. I believe we should put Irish people first.

This referendum is about whether or not we believe that ALL children born in the island of Ireland should continue having Irish citizenship, irrespective of the origins of their parents. Gubygirl, answer me this: Do you want ALL children born on the island of Ireland to continue gettign Irish citizenship irrespective of the circumstances and with NO controls on the numbers of non-national's children getting it? I would really like to know this.

There is massive pressure on our hospitals with 25% of births being to non-nationals, in spite of them only being 6% of our population. It is clear that citizenship is the main reason for this. I will accept no argument that says that the weather or "friendly people" are the reason 58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 are pregnant on arrival here. They are here to get citizenship for their babies in the hope it will create institutional sympathy in those bodies responsible for deciding on their asylum-claims AND/OR will give them at least an EU passport. Nigerian criminal gangs are notorious for forging, copying and selling EU passports and they would love the way our system so eagerly helps them. The US has suspended the issuing of work-permits to Nigeria because of the sheer scale of this.

If you believe that all asylum-seekers' children should continue to get citizenship, then have no doubt what the monetary consequences of this will be for the Irish taxpayer. A "No" vote means writing a cheque with no limits. It means committing to spending precious Health-Service resources on foreigners here to acquire an EU passport and citizenship for their children. It means that thousands of pregnant asylum-seekers will continue to travel to Ireland to get an EU passport like Mrs.Chen did. And that means that because many will keep coming here, that the cost of accommodating asylum-seekers will rise even further. There would be NOTHING to limit the scale of this increase in spending. Considering that the Dublin Convention makes it virtually impossible to be a genuine asylum-seeker, I consider this a waste of money and I am determined to vote "Yes" to end a disgraceful system that throws money at anyone who comes into our country and claims asylum. They claim asylum yet as their countries of origin shows most clearly, it is economic grounds that really motivate them. But I have said already why allowing all asylum-seekers to work is not in our interest. As workers prepared to to undercut Irish workers in terms of pay (and they ARE), Irish employers will obviously find them more attractive than Irish people to employ. Many Irish people would lose their jobs in this way, and so I consider it unpatriotic to allow all asylum-seekers to work here.

Even if they were allowed to work, they would still likely have to get on the housing list to find a place to live, making Irish people's seemingly endless wait on this list even longer. We all know that asylum-seekers are fastracked up to the front of this list and this is wrong. We must put our own peoples' needs first. I sympathise with the people of the Third World, but we cannot afford unlimited costs associated with unrestricted migration to Ireland. Allowing citizenship on the basis solely of birth smacks of unplanned, haphazard immigration policy. It is throwing good money after bad to commence along such an idiotic course. We spent 350 million euro on asylum-seekers in 2002.

The Chen case established that the non-EU nationals who are parents of children born in the EU also have the same residency rights as that EU citizen. As EU law overrides national law, this obviously applies here too, despite the claims to the contrary by left-wing lawyers. Thus, the Chen case has opened a Pandora's box whererby all 11,000 asylum-seekers that are parents of children born in Ireland can now argue on the basis of the Chen case that as they are also parents to Irish-born and therefore EU citizens, that they can also have a legal right to residency in the EU-25. This will bring us back to the situation before the 2003 Supreme Court judgement, in terms of residency for the parents, though not citizenship for them. Nonetheless the costs associated with the State buying them free houses will continue to escalate.

I am voting "Yes" here to end the nonsense that unlimited numbers of babies of foreigners coming to Ireland shoudl have citizenship. I deplore the actions of those parents using their babies to get an EU passport. And I am determined to put a stop to it. They have already come through 6 or 7 western countries and were in no danger when they decided to cross into Ireland. We need to keep control of costs and voting "No" signs us up to a cost without limits. Because if you can't control numbers, you can't control costs. Yet we only have 1.9 million taxpayers, unlike the vast economies of the UK and the US, to which Ireland is so ridiculously compared by the "No" side in terms of destinations.

gubugirl

Arcadegame - the Work permits legislation is not Immigration legislation. It is designed to provide labour on a temporary basis for certain specified sectors in the economy. A work permit expires after a maximum of one year, at which time it has to be either renewed by the employer or the worker loses their job and is forced to go home or go illegal. That is not an immigration policy. That is not immigration law.

Since 1998, 100,000 work permits have been issued, but that does not mean that 100,000 immigrants are in the country, since many of those permits are renewals.

What it does mean however, is that there are thousands of immigrant workers legally in the state, who along with those immigrants on work visas (the 'permits for professionals' that allow them to change jobs), occasionally get pregnant if they happen to be women. Would you rather they didn't?

Your figure of 25% of births in Irish hospitals being to non-nationals does not take account of this reality - you simply lump in all non-national births as to being to people coming here to 'shop' for citizenship.

You also don't take into account the fact that that figure includes all births to non-nationals, including tourists, British citizens and US citizens, etc etc etc.

What would you have legitimate asylum seekers, legitimate work permits holders and work visa holders do? Should they not get pregnant in this state? Would you have more extreme measures to suggest? Just where are you heading with your viewpoint arcadegame?

And just where are you coming from arguing that the amendment changes brought about by the GFA led to the increase in numbers coming? The increase predates 1998 and the GFA. It began with the birth of the Celtic Tiger and grew with it year on year. The Irish government went out there proclaiming its need for immigrant workers forgodsakes...

I am sure you will vote Yes, but hopefully other voters will see through the claims of McDowell, Harney & Co.

arcadegame2004

Gubugirl, the geographic location of Ireland makes it almost impossible for any of our asylum-seekers to be legal under the Dublin Convention 1981 to be legal migrants. That Convention says that you must claim asylum only in the first EU state of entry. 95% of asylum seekers in this state eventually end up being found to have been bogus. Do you accept the provisions of the Dublin Convention? They mean that 1 in 200 asylum seekers are genuine.

The definite figures we have for numbers of pregnant asylum-seekers that claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland in 2003 is 1,893. This does not include cases like Chen who are giving birth in Belfast. She has admitted that her lawyer advised her to give birth in Belfast to make her the mother of an EU citizen (under Irish law her daughter automatically became and Irish and therefore EU citizenship), and thus strengthen her asylum claim. It worked. Now all 11,000 asylum-seekers in Ireland with Irish-born children can challenge their deportations on the basis that they too have produced Irish-born children and therefore EU citizens. In short, the Chen ruling is likely to have removed the deterrent of the 2003 Supreme Court case that said that the asylum-seeker parents of Irish-born children could be deported. Remember that EU law overrides national law.

You seem to be wanting immigration for its own sake. That is not the right approach. A cost-benefit analysis is needed, not some mantra that says "immigration is always good, no matter how many come here and no matter what state the job-market is in". This is a silly position to have. The question of whether to allow more people in has to be subjected to considerations of national-interest. I am agaisnt the kind of free-for-all you are calling for, whereby anyone who claims asylum here should get the right to work. Irish workers will always lose out in competition to such people because we would not work for as little as asylum-seekers would. Do you want to see Irish people losing their jobs?

"Since 1998, 100,000 work permits have been issued, but that does not mean that 100,000 immigrants are in the country, since many of those permits are renewals."

150,000 actually.

Why does a migrant-worker programme have to include granting citizenship, in your opinion?

Victor

Originally posted by gubugirl
But inserting a clause, as it does, that will allow future governments to change the supporting legislation it's currently grounded on is even more dangerous.

Former congressman Morrison (he of the Morrison visa) made the ppoint that it also binds the government in ways it shouldn't be bound, hence the change isn't necessarily an improvement.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
But gubugirl, you forget that the context changed completely in 1998 because Ireland was an unattractive destination for economic-migrants prior to then. The GFA referendum achieved such a scale of publicity internationally that the aspect of it constitutionally enshrining citizenship based solely on birth became much more widely-known. Also, the economic prosperity of modern Ireland meant that far more people come here to claim asylum than we have ever been used to since independence.

Bull, you've been told it's bull, but you continue to spout it.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Let's not make the mistake of going down the mistaken American route of thinking our Constitution is perfect and must forever remain unchanged.

I'm pleading the Fifth (Amendment!) on that.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Irish workers will always lose out in competition to such people because we would not work for as little as asylum-seekers would. Do you want to see Irish people losing their jobs?

What? Irish people have no skills of their own?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You seem to be wanting immigration for its own sake. That is not the right approach. A cost-benefit analysis is needed,

Ah, so this is about immigration after all, not citizenship? Cost-benefit analyses to date indicate a 1% immigration rate whould sustain something like 1.5% extra growth in GNP - a win-win situation.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"Since 1998, 100,000 work permits have been issued, but that does not mean that 100,000 immigrants are in the country, since many of those permits are renewals."

150,000 actually.

Thats what? About 25,000 per annum? Out of a 2,000,000 work force?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why does a migrant-worker programme have to include granting citizenship, in your opinion?

It doesn't "have to", but it is a good option to have.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Remember that EU law overrides national law.

No it doesn't. Ireland has merely delegated the making of some law to Europe. In essence it is a matter of "if we want to benefit, we must contribute".

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
gubugirl, I do not accept your view that I am exaggerating the impact on the international media coverage of the GFA and GFA referendums on the knowledge of our citizenship law.

Google says you're wrong.

+"Good Friday Agreement" +citizenship about 5,550 results
http://www.google.ie/search?q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2Bcitizenship&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

+"Good Friday Agreement" +immigration about 5,020 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2Bimmigration&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Good Friday Agreement" +birth about 5,060 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2Bbirth+&btnG=Search&meta=

---

+"Good Friday Agreement" +IRA about 31,300 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2BIRA&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Good Friday Agreement" +peace about 45,000 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2Bpeace&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Good Friday Agreement" +Government about 50,500 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Good+Friday+Agreement%22+%2BGovernment&btnG=Search&meta=

---

+"Belfast Agreement" +citizenship about 1,870 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2Bcitizenship&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Belfast Agreement" +immigration about 1,990 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2Bimmigration&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Belfast Agreement" +birth about 1,520 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2Bbirth&btnG=Search&meta=

---

+"Belfast Agreement" +IRA about 6,840 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2BIRA&btnG=Search&meta=

+"Belfast Agreement" +peace about 10,400 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2Bpeace&meta=

+"Belfast Agreement" +Government about 15,400 results
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Belfast+Agreement%22+%2BGovernment&btnG=Search&meta=

gubugirl

Arcadegame: the numbers game will get you nowhere.

You say "95% of asylum seekers in this state eventually end up being found to have been bogus". Wrong.

You ignore those who appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and have the decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner set aside. Almost a quarter of appeals end up this way.

According to figures from the Irish Refugee Council, since November 2000 3,056 individuals (22% of cases processed at appeal) have been recognised as refugees at appeal, compared to 2,049 at first instance.

So far in 2004, more people have been granted refugee status on appeal than are granted at first application.

Your first point makes the point I made in an earlier posting:
(“most asylum seekers who end up here either do not come here as their country of first choice destination (difficult anyway since we're an island with very few international direct flights)” ….

You say: “the geographic location of Ireland makes it almost impossible for any of our asylum-seekers to be legal under the Dublin Convention 1981 to be legal migrants.”

But does that mean we say ‘Sorry, mates, we’re an island surrounded by water. That means you haven’t a hope in hell of getting here except through another country. Get ye gone to that yon country and apply there.’
The end-result if we applied the Dublin Convention to its logical conclusion would be we would have next to zero asylum seekers, thus moving further away from our responsibilities under international law. Even the Department of Justice doesn’t try that. The Dublin Convention does not mean, as you claim, that one in 200 asylum seekers are ‘genuine’.

But arcadegame, don’t let’s get into sidewinds here. The issue is about the citizenship referendum and your desire to keep on stating things on the boards that just aren’t accurate or don’t add up in relation to it.

You say: “The definite figures we have for numbers of pregnant asylum-seekers that claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland in 2003 is 1,893.”
Let’s assume your ‘definite figure’ is correct, (and just in case it’s not, could you give us please the exact source of it?)

New asylum applications in Ireland in 2003 amounted to just under 8,000, according to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC).
Between 1994 and 2003 there were a total of 51,095 applications for asylum made in the Republic. That’s around 50,000 asylum seekers, arcadegame, of which around half are women. That means 25,000 women waiting for asylum applications to be processed, waiting for appeals to be processed, waiting for humanitarian leave applications to be processed, or actually granted refugee status.

Again, I ask you, what do you expect those women to do – not become pregnant? Postpone their lives until the Department of Justice sees its way to sorting out its immigration/asylum policy and systems mess. And if they do become pregnant, where would you say they should give birth if not in a hospital?

And you mention the Chen case. Could you read it, please. The Chen case judgment, when it comes, it will have limited application in Ireland: read it and see. Just because Michael McDowell spins a line doesn’t mean to say we all have to follow it like blind sheep – Do your homework arcadegame.

I defer to Victor’s answers to your other points.

And can you do your homework also on this 150,000 figure you persist in quoting re work permits.

You’re wrong again. 150,000 work permits were issued in total in the past five years but around 50,000 of those were renewals, leaving 100,000 new work permits issued.

100,000 is the correct figure to use.

And that does not mean that there are 100,000 immigrants on work permits in the country at the moment.

In fact, last year, 2003, 21,965 new work permits were issued, and 25,039 renewals, giving a total of less than 50,000 immigrants in the state on work permits at the moment.

Re your question ‘Why does a migrant-worker programme have to include granting citizenship, in your opinion?’

Can I ask that you desist from making assumptions about what I am calling for, what my opinion is, etc. Read what I’m writing, not what you want me to write.

I think if a proper immigration system was introduced in this state, it could have a number of alternative manifestations, including temporary migrant-worker programmes and options that allow for permanent settlement of migrants in the state.

But alas, as I stated earlier, there ain’t no immigration system as such, in this state.

This referendum is about penalizing the children of immigrants and asylum seekers in this state for policies and practices that are the responsibility of McDowell, Harney and their government.

As they say, arcadegame, Don’t pick on the Kids…

Victor

Originally posted by gubugirl
But does that mean we say ‘Sorry, mates, we’re an island surrounded by water. That means you haven’t a hope in hell of getting here except through another country. Get ye gone to that yon country and apply there.’
The end-result if we applied the Dublin Convention to its logical conclusion would be we would have next to zero asylum seekers, thus moving further away from our responsibilities under international law. Even the Department of Justice doesn’t try that. The Dublin Convention does not mean, as you claim, that one in 200 asylum seekers are ‘genuine’.

Hmmm, just thinking. What about them thar ships that show up in ports?

arcadegame2004

"This referendum is about penalizing the children of immigrants and asylum seekers in this state for policies and practices that are the responsibility of McDowell, Harney and their government." (Gubugirl)

Having listened to Saturday view on the internet just now, I think that Minister McDowell made a very important point.

He said that in the event that we keep our citizenship-law as it is by voting "No", then because the parents in the Chen case were allowed to remain in the EU because their child was an Irish and therefore citizen, that it would mean ANY and ALL asylum-seekers facing deportation from their current EU country of residence would know that all they had to do to guarantee they won't be deported is to come to Ireland as or with a pregnant women.

This is a VERY far-reaching result and illustrates that contrary to the Irish Left's and the "No" campaign's misleading claims, the Chen case is EXTREMELY relevant to this referendum campaign.

Huge numbers of asylum-seekers already within the EU now know that they cab definitely avoid deportation BOTH from Ireland and from the EU by simply turning up pregnant in Ireland. That is the inevitable implication of the Chen judgement. It applies to Ireland because we are an EU state and European Court of Justice rulings apply to ALL EU states. EU law overrides national law.

So it isn't just the children of the asylum-seekers that are affected.

This Chen judgement, combined with our current citizenship-law, means that the PARENTS can gain permanent residency within the EU by coming here pregnant and claiming asylum. This was a loophole that we thought had been closed by the January 2003 Supreme Court ruling. Now the ECJ has re-opened it.

It therefore falls to us to close it again. BTW, 80% of the 25% of births in Dublin Hospitals to non-nationals were to non-EU nationals.

gubugirl

Victor - 'them thar ships that show up in ports' tend to come via other ports, so the Dublin Convention kicks in there too. But arcade is wrong is suggest all asylum seekers coming to Ireland fall under the Dublin Convention.

Arcadegame - The Chen opinion is not as central to this referendum as you and Michael McDowell suggest. Yes, EU law is supreme over Irish law, but EU law's current position on citizenship and nationality is that it gives exclusive power to member states to decide their own citizenship and nationality laws.

Chen relates to permission to reside, not the right to citizenship.

And central to Chen's residency issue is a principle of EU law that applies to all residency laws throughout the EU, including Ireland. This grants in limited cases a right to residency "provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence."

So the idea that Chen will lead to thousands coming in here or in the North or in the rest of the EU to live off the state is simply nonsense. Doesn't stop Fuhrer McDowell suggesting it by implication of course.

And Chen does not overturn the 2003 Supreme Court judgment relating to deportations of parents of Irish children. It is about an entirely different legal issue. And as clarified in the extract from EU law above, there is no possibility of Chen leading to a drain on 'taxpayers' resources' as you claim.

There's a lot of misinformation and spin being put about on this referendum.

And Mary Harney's latest statement is part of the spin. She argues that all this is about is giving the Oireachtas power to legislate on citizenship. It currently has that power, but the final power to decide rests with the Irish people. Voting Yes to this referendum will remove that power from the people and hand it lock, stock and barrel to Harney, McDowell and future governments of whatever hue. That is dangerous. In her statement Harney said handing the power to the Oireachtas allows the Government to make the law more liberal in the future: she just left out the corollary, which is that handing the power to the Oireachtas allows the Government to make the law more draconian in the future.

arcadegame2004

"And Mary Harney's latest statement is part of the spin. She argues that all this is about is giving the Oireachtas power to legislate on citizenship. It currently has that power, but the final power to decide rests with the Irish people. Voting Yes to this referendum will remove that power from the people and hand it lock, stock and barrel to Harney, McDowell and future governments of whatever hue. That is dangerous. In her statement Harney said handing the power to the Oireachtas allows the Government to make the law more liberal in the future: she just left out the corollary, which is that handing the power to the Oireachtas allows the Government to make the law more draconian in the future." (Gubugirl)

Well the Dail had that power during the 77 years when the right to citizenship based on being born in Ireland was in our laws but NOT in our Constitution and it didn't do that then.

gubugirl

It didn't do it in those years because fortunately, the principle of cherishing all of the children of the nation equally was still a cornerstone of Irish ideals - unlike the situation that will follow if this referendum is passed.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by gubugirl
... cherishing all of the children of the nation equally ...

The cherishing is the easy bit, its deciding who can be deemed to be a child of the nation that's the problem. I think you're sort of assuming what has to be proved. Irish citizenship laws were not framed in a context where people with no particular connection to the nation where simply using them as a device to remain in the EU.

I don't see any basis for saying the existing law reflects a long standing core value that the child of anyone entering the country by whatever means is a citizen. Present law simply reflects that the issue we are dealing with now did not have to be addressed in the dim and distant past, or even in the reasonably recent past, where the concerns about nationality related to emigrants and people in the six counties rather than immigrants.

SoulSurgeon

Here is a nice article about citizenship referendum

http://www.sbpost.ie/web/Sitemap/1.9did-58238322-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FComment-and-Analysis.asp