Should Citizenship referendum be delayed?

gubugirl

Re assuming what has yet to be proven, Ishmael whale, we could start with your suggestion that people with no particular connection to the nation are or would simply use citizenship laws as a device to remain in the EU.

The Government and McDowell have failed to produce any accurate statistics that show that this is happening now. Can you?

I think you'll agree it can't happen as a result of the Chen case. McDowell and today, Brian Lenihan, have suggested it could, but they are manipulating the truth. So the height of this claim at the moment is that it is a fear. We are to vote to amend our constitution on foot of a fear.

A core value in our nation heretofore is that all the children of the nation are to be cherished equally. It has been oft quoted, not least when politicians were looking for our votes.

It is indeed ironic that the son of a man who as a Government Minister in the 1980s advised people like myself to emigrate (Brian Lenihan Snr) should now seek to delineate who has the right to citizenship of this state.

But then, it is also ironic that Mary Harney and Bertie Ahern were in the past members of governments who sold citizenship for a fee for those with a fat enough sum to buy it - remember the passports for sale scandal!

But to go back to your claim that this birth right has never been seen the way I see it: your assertion is contradicted by events as recent as 1998 during the campaign on the Good Friday Agreement referendum. It was back then, after all, that Harney, Bertie & Co went out of their way to insist they would never, no never, interfere with this right.

In a letter sent by Bertie to the then Labour party leader Ruairi Quinn on April 20th, 1998, he said: "One effect of the new Article will undoubtedly be to confer an entitlement to Irish citizenship on persons born in Northern Ireland irrespective of their family background or the circumstances of their birth in Northern Ireland."

Bertie went on: "We do not contemplate any change in the jus soli rule [the principle that a person's nationality is determined by the territory of birth]. Considerations of peace in Northern Ireland would outweigh any concerns related to immigration."

In a further letter dated May 21st 1998 the Taoiseach said: "I can assure you that in the event of Article 2 and 3 taking effect, no legislation will be proposed by this government to the Oireachtas which imposes restrictions on the entitlement to Irish nationality and citizenship of persons born in Ireland".

bonkey

OK, I realise we've kinda drifted off-topic and seem to be more-or-less having a carbon-copy discussion of the "Do you support the referendum change", so here's a thought...

Regardless of whether or not you support the referendum, does it not appear that the proposed change is not without its flaws as well? I was thinking about this...and maybe its covered somewhere...but consider the situation of someone who has been granted asylum. Now, unless I'm mistaken, they are not Irish citizens.

Say the referendum passes, and these asylumees (?) have children. Neither they, nor their children are Irish, nor have any right to Irish Citizenship. Now, while there may exist legislation which can grant citizenship in this case, consider that there is no right for descendants of this family to ever become Irish, unless they marry into families who already have citizenship.

Now, OK...I'm the first to admit it's a pretty unlikely scenario...but given what I would feel is an undeniable cultural tendancy to "stick together", it is one which would seem to stand a real possibility of actually occurring to at least the second generation (grandchildren).

Yes, there may be legislation to cover this, but is that enough? Is it enough that people who could be the second generation of a family born on this island are still not considered to have a right to citizenship like anyone else?

Now, I realise that prior to the Amending of Article 2, there was no right to citizenship through birth - merely a legislative one. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a legislative solution is the correct one.

I'm just posing the question, because while people are knocking themselves out pointing out how obvious (or otherwise) the loophole in the Article 2 amendment was, no-one seems to be looking at whether or not the current proposal is sufficiently tight and reasonable in what it sets out to achieve. Whether or not you agree with what it proposes, is it solid legislation, or are there less obscure questions then the one I posed above which should be asked? And if so....would this not at least validate the suggestion that the referendum should be delayed for further consideration and debate?

jc

arcadegame2004

Ok its like this. I want to address Gubugirl and Bonkey's latest remarks on this thread.

Gubugirl, it is a MYTH that Irish citizenship-law has always been SOLELY about the jus soli principle. There is an example fo the jus sanguine principle in the fact that Irish citizens living outside this country have been entitled to pass their citizenship onto their foreign-born children, for example - a right that will remain under this amendment which just says that people born on this island of parents with NO connection at all to the State cannot automatically get Irish citizenship unless one of the parents is born on the island of Ireland. SO you see this isn't such a radical change we are proposing.

And even if it was, you know perfectly well that before the 1990's Ireland was not an attractive destination for economic-migrants. We were poor then. The scope for the citizenship by birth rule to be abused was thus less, as few immigrants were interested in getting here while we were poor.

It is interesting that as soon as we become rich then a lot of people are claiming they must have the right to asylum in Ireland as they are suddenly fleeing persecution, famine and war......in Romania (!). What are Romanians fleeing? Dracula?

And anyway Gubugirl, you can't get away from the fact that when you put a law into the Constitution. and even more so when you place that law into an international-agreement, that it is going to attract a far greater international audience that is normally the case. And hence citizenship-tourism to Ireland was born. I am determind to stamp it out. And that is why I will vote "Yes". I am utterly determined on this point that I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that anything can change my mind. Indeed the 54% yes vote in todays TNS/MRBI poll are striking for their near identical yes vote to the Sunday Business Post Red C poll, and this adds credibility to the mind to these figures. As does the correlation between the Irish Examiner Munster poll, which, like the Irish Times TNS/MRBI poll, shows that Munster is out of line with the country in general in having only 44% support for the amendment.

Bonkey, I feel that this referendum is actually long overdue. I have wanted this for years and I doubt I am alone in this. I am determined that immigration in this country should be solely by legal channels. The Chen case is clearly a central reason to vote "Yes". Under the Chen ruling, anyone anywhere in the EU facing deportation knows that all they need to do to get permanent EU and Irish residency is to arrive in Ireland either pregnant or with a pregnant girlfriends (because Mr.Chen also got EU residency).

If EVERY EU state allowed citizenship solely on the basis of birth, then I wouldn't be as concerned, as then the burden of citizenship/residency motivated asylum-seeking would be shared more evenly across the EU. The fact that Ireland is the ONLY EU state to grant Irish/EU citizenship solely on the basis of birth means that we are being forced to bear the whole burden of citizenship/residency tourism and I cannot accept this.

I will still vote "Yes".

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The Chen case is clearly a central reason to vote "Yes". Under the Chen ruling, anyone anywhere in the EU facing deportation knows that all they need to do to get permanent EU and Irish residency is to arrive in Ireland either pregnant or with a pregnant girlfriends (because Mr.Chen also got EU residency).

...and has been found by the court to have - or have access to - sufficient funds so as not to pose any real risk of ever becoming a burden on the state.

Or did you forget that bit of the ruling?

jc

arcadegame2004

Yes but "family unity" was the phrase used by the ECJ to justify allowing Mrs.Chen, AND Mr.Chen also to stay in the EU. This could be used by others who are not as wealthy as Mrs.Chen.

bonkey

Oh come on.

So now we're not talking about an alleged abuse in our system, but rather the possible existence of a loophole in a to-date non-binding judgement in anoter EU nation on an issue which may or may not be then considered to be an EU requirement, rather than an indiviual nation's choice of how to comply.

This is just how tenuous the "damning" Chen judgement that you've been going on for days is. You're stacking maybe up on top of maybe and making it out to be the final nail in some mythical coffin made up of a lot of other ifs, buts, and maybes, and making it out to be the largest threat our nation has faced since, well, the inception of the state when one looks at the foreign invasion you are worried about.

jc

Memnoch

as someone who had an indian passport and hopes for EU citizenship some day, I would agree with the referendum on principle but not in its current form.

I believe that if someone is staying LEGALLY in country for more than a year, then that should be enough. because in that case the child was concieved and born here. This stops the exploitation of people arriving in a boat, but does not then deprive people who are working honestly and within the law to make a better life for themselves and their family.

arcadegame2004

"Oh come on.

So now we're not talking about an alleged abuse in our system, but rather the possible existence of a loophole in a to-date non-binding judgement in anoter EU nation on an issue which may or may not be then considered to be an EU requirement, rather than an indiviual nation's choice of how to comply." (Bonkey)

Actually Bonkey, far from being just another "if" and "but" or "maybe". the preliminary ruling of the Advocate-General is accepted by the full-rulings of the European Court of Justice in 90% of cases. Chances are overwhelmingly that the Chen ruling will be the ruling in August.

"I believe that if someone is staying LEGALLY in country for more than a year, then that should be enough. because in that case the child was concieved and born here. This stops the exploitation of people arriving in a boat, but does not then deprive people who are working honestly and within the law to make a better life for themselves and their family." (Memnoch)

I disagree. Remember that many of the work-permits expire - unless renewed (as most are) - after 1 year. I am not going to accept the idea of them all getting Irish citizenship just before they are about to go home. That is not a sufficient connection to warrant citizenship. The Irish Labour market also has to be protected.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
I believe that if someone is staying LEGALLY in country for more than a year, then that should be enough.

But - as I believe the reasoning is - this can be legislated for under the proposed change. It is only an issue of whether it should be enshrined as a constitutional right, or "merely" a piece of legislation decided on by the government of the day.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Actually Bonkey, far from being just another "if" and "but" or "maybe". the preliminary ruling of the Advocate-General is accepted by the full-rulings of the European Court of Justice in 90% of cases. Chances are overwhelmingly that the Chen ruling will be the ruling in August.

Based on pure past odds, it's likely that this is the case.

However you still haven't made any rational connection between the ruling in Chen and poor people coming here (to Ireland, with residency rights, welfare rights AND the ability and right to sponge off the State). Can you do that before you spout on about the Chen case again as the spluttering repetitiveness is hurting my hope for humanity. Please. The rubbish over in the ostensible "local government" thread was enough from any poster in one month. Stopping with a few facts rather than blatant assertions based on paranoia might be a nice idea here. As people who have been here know long enough, I'm generally a rational sort of chap who understands that differing points of view are good. I usually only ever have a real problem with two things: presentation of assertions as fact without any underlying logic or proof and hammering at the keyboard irrational ****e without any underlying anything. Let's have some underlying anything. Stop, look around and address the key differences between the judgement in the Chen case and what you've been typing, as highlighted by people up the page. A single rational post a day that seeks to address and refute is better than ten posts that don't address anything. Unlike the actual referendum, it isn't based on the number of times an opinion is put forward.

Memnoch

Originally posted by bonkey
But - as I believe the reasoning is - this can be legislated for under the proposed change. It is only an issue of whether it should be enshrined as a constitutional right, or "merely" a piece of legislation decided on by the government of the day.

jc

its a tough question... what makes someone irish?
I'd say i'm more irish than Indian. Even my family makes fun of me for my "western" ideas. I can't tolerate food that is too spicey. I take an active interest in "western" politics. I speak English better than I speak hindi. Though I can't speak irish. My ideas and mindset are based primarily on the upbringing i've had in this country. Is that enough to make me "irish".

Maybe anyone who drinks more than 30 pints a week should have the constitutional right to be irish?

How do you quantify nationality, or nationalism for that matter? Using birth is a good way, or period of residence.

but i'd say if a child's parents are legally staying in a country, and the child is born there, in all likelyhood the child is going to be brought up there, again legally and so imo it should be their right to citizenship.

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
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.

However they did allow residence for such people in the UK during all those years.

SoulSurgeon

Enter Baron Munchausen McDowell

23/05/04 00:00

By Vincent Browne

There is a condition known in psychiatry as Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, for which I think Michael McDowell needs treatment.

It is a variant of Munchausen's Syndrome, which is character is ed by p ersons deliberately exaggerating, fabricating or inducing physical or psychological problems in themselves. Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy is characterised by the deliberate exaggeration, fabr ication or inducement of physical or psychological problems in others, to justify some kind of intervention. l

You can see the link to the article in my previous post

P.S Just wonder if mods could close one of this threads, so disccusion about referendum can be be kept neat and nicely under one threat.


Beir bua agus beannacht,

Soul surgeon.

arcadegame2004

Well Sceptre, my claims (which I stand over) in relation to the Chen case have been given credence because it has been mentioned on RTE news programmes e.g. FiveSevenLive - admittedly not given the kind of attention it should have been given - that the 11,000 asylum-seekers who are the parents of Irish-born children/EU citizens could use the Chen precedent to argue that they can no longer be deported becaus they have such parentage.

I agree that the medical-insurance issue was ONE of the grounds Chen was allowed to stay.

But so was "family unity". It was ruled that deporting Mr. and Mrs. Chen would breach EU anti-discrimination laws.

As such, the "family unity" argue may have opened a new floodgate whererby asylum-seekers facing deportation from another EU state need only come here and give birth in an Irish hospital and then the parent gets EU residency rights.

Now, remember Sceptre that British residency rights are not what the court referred to. He referred to "EU-residency" rights , i.e. rights to live ANYWHERE in the EU. The EU includes Ireland.

Even if you disagree with me on this position of mine, there is one issue that you surely can agree with me on, and what is that?

It is the fact that at the very least, the Chen ruling allows asylum-seekers in other EU states to waste the precious resources of the Irish Health-Service as a back door into guaranteed permanent-residency within the EU.

Passports or patients? Which should be the priority for the Health-Service? I believe it should be patients. So I am voting "Yes" to end the baby-rackets once and for all.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Sceptre, my claims (which I stand over) in relation to the Chen case have been given credence because it has been mentioned on RTE news programmes e.g. FiveSevenLive

Ooh, FiveSevenLive. Well that's that cleared up then. Jim McDaid mentioning it on Q&A nearly had me convinced too until everyone else except Dana tried to point out that he was peddling misrepresentations of the facts. Er no, not necessarily, look at the actual ruling.

Now, remember Sceptre that British residency rights are not what the court referred to. He referred to "EU-residency" rights , i.e. rights to live ANYWHERE in the EU. The EU includes Ireland.

Whooosh, missed my point. Look back at the actual preliminary ruling (the actual ruling rather than whatever you heard on RadioOne's driving home show) and read the bits about the relevance of Mrs Chen's financial situation with regard to financial provision for her and the child. In the judgement remember, not whatever you've heard peddled by people who rarely know better.

It is the fact that at the very least, the Chen ruling allows asylum-seekers in other EU states to waste the precious resources of the Irish Health-Service as a back door into guaranteed permanent-residency within the EU.

The Chen ruling doesn't change it one way or the other. See my previous point and re-read the actual preliminary ruling.

Try to stick to the facts eh? Your case might well stand on its own without hyperbole, misrepresentation or scare-mongering. I realise, as you've said elsewhere, that this issue is a particular one of passion for you but it doesn't excuse fudging the real situation as you're doing to achieve one extra vote on whatever side you're on.

arcadegame2004

Sceptre, do you think its acceptable for asylum-seekers in other EU states to be able to avoid deportation by giving birth in irish hospitals? And do you think its an acceptable use of hospital resouces?

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sceptre, do you think its acceptable for asylum-seekers in other EU states to be able to avoid deportation by giving birth in irish hospitals? And do you think its an acceptable use of hospital resouces?

Given that you're specifically asking me, let me first answer a question with another question:

Can I assume from your non-addressing of the core issue in Chen, which you appear to have misunderstood, that you haven't even read the damn thing you're spouting on about?

Secondly, as I've pointed out, I don't really care what your views are on anything in particular as long as you stop misleading, either intentionally or through ignorance. Which you're continually doing. Except for that Thatcherite Chicago school economic strategy you're coming close to espousing elsewere. I'll happily argue against that one on its own merits, assuming the thread has some semblance of coherency. Nevertheless the misleading nature of the posts above in this thread and the other citizenship thread (including the dodgy logic, dealt with below) is a terrible waste of your doubtless valuable time.

Thirdly, our internal laws are substantially our own business, certainly where they do not conflict with any of our EU Treaty or other international obligations (actual existing international obligations, not just stuff we'd like). In the case of citizenship, all European Treaties since 1951 have left the citizenship issue to individual States. As it probably should be. Hence, whether or not there's an ssue for other states as a result of our citizenship policy is irrelevant as long as the EU leaves citizenship policy with member States.

Do I think it's an "acceptable use of hospital resources"? Well I'd rather children were born with some amount of medical care present rather than being born in a field if that's what you're asking. If that's not what you're asking, you've got nothing but anecdotal evidence and hearsay, a non-corresponding trend graph and the conviction in your own loins to demonstrate that this will actually make any difference to the number of people either coming to Ireland to give birth or giving birth here once they do arrive. As bonkey has said, this connection between our citizenship laws and the number of asylum-seekers is only obvious because you say it is. You're essentially making a deductive syllogism without proving the accuracy of your initial proposition. Hence from a mathematical point of view you've got a potential formal fallacy in the inferences on the way to your conclusion, one that you consistently fail to address when it is pointed out by people (presumably mostly on the 'no' side but certainly with a valid appreciation of formal logic), fail to correct and as far as I can see, actually fail to recognise. Hence, you're building a case with a foundation of assumptions rather than certain and verified facts and it's perfectly sound for people to point out the flaw in your initial unverified reasoning in addition to (or even instead of) addressing the potentially faulty conclusion.

Put simply, you're making a case based on first principles that themselves have not been verified as correct. Any logic based on this is suspect by its very nature. Then you're making assertions along the way that have no provable bearing on the conclusion you're finishing up with. Your conclusion, given that you've tried to back it up with something, is only as good as the logic through which it progresses, logic which is substantially faulty and unverifiable. In other words, you're doing just another well-known poster named after a southern county does here but just using more words. Trace your case back to the start and begin. You're just losing votes at this stage.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of votes to spare but for someone like your good self who's so fervently pro the amendment you're not doing your side any favours. Muddying the waters isn't fooling anyone except the likes of Jim McDaid.

arcadegame2004

Hence, whether or not there's an ssue for other states as a result of our citizenship policy is irrelevant as long as the EU leaves citizenship policy with member States.

(Sceptre)

I disagree. The asylum-seekers and others are using our hospitals as their personal passport-offices at the taxpayer's expense. The sacred resources of the Health-Service should not be wasted in such a way. I know theres something fishy going on when 6% of the population produce 25% of the births. And 80% of that 25% are people from outside of the EU.

We need to rid our land of the Constitutional mistake of allowing automatic citizenship on the sole basis of birth. 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 last year arrived pregnant = 1,893 women. This itself is clear evidence of citizenship/residency/passport tourism.

I have included statistics there, not hearsay.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by gubugirl
Re assuming what has yet to be proven, Ishmael whale, we could start with your suggestion that people with no particular connection to the nation are or would simply use citizenship laws as a device to remain in the EU.

Well this is essentially what is happening in the Chen case. Let me emphasise I have no individual bone to pick with the claimant in this case, but as I understand it she was advised by her lawyer to give birth in Northern Ireland as a device to obtain residency in the UK as her child would be deemed an Irish, and therefore EU, citizen.

Originally posted by gubugirl
The Government and McDowell have failed to produce any accurate statistics that show that this is happening now. Can you?

Information, including some figures, have been provided by the Masters of the maternity hospitals. These have been published, and even posted in previous threads. If its really an issue to you I can find them and post them up here (for what at this stage is about the third time). The contention of the Masters is simply that women are arriving from abroad in a late stage of pregnancy, sometimes only arriving for the first time in hospital while actually in labour. While the number of births concerned are a small portion of total national births, they report this is happening often enough to be a strain on the system. While the Masters do not have the ability to read minds, their belief is that the prospect of obtaining Irish citizenship for the child is a motivation.

While the Masters have later disassociated themselves from the decision to hold a referendum, they have not explained how additional resources would address the problem of maternity units coping with cases where they do not have any medical history on the mother presenting for delivery. But that’s another days’ work.

The message I would take from existing information is that clearly an amount of people are using the existing loophole simply to obtain EU citizenship for their children. It seems to me bizarre that someone could even enter the country illegally and claim citizenship for their children. The quantities do not seem overwhelming at the moment, but if something makes no logical sense then I see no reason for its continuance and, given it requires a referendum to change the relevant provision, I don’t really see the need to wait and see if a massive problem arises.

Originally posted by gubugirl
A core value in our nation heretofore is that all the children of the nation are to be cherished equally. It has been oft quoted, not least when politicians were looking for our votes.

I think you’re back to assuming the question. The original phrase ‘cherish all the children of the nation equally’ was included in the 1916 Proclamation with the intention to express the value that Protestants and Catholics would be treated equally. (For example in the Proclamation Ireland also ‘calls her children to arms’ ) I accept that in recent years some people have used this phrase in very different contexts, but I think you will agree that its use in the area of citizenship simply underlines the fact that the world has changed and different issues now need solutions.

Originally posted by gubugirl
But to go back to your claim that this birth right has never been seen the way I see it: your assertion is contradicted by events as recent as 1998 during the campaign on the Good Friday Agreement referendum. It was back then, after all, that Harney, Bertie & Co went out of their way to insist they would never, no never, interfere with this right.

Considering that events have forced them to change their position suggests that they accept they were just plain wrong. However, it is simply a fact that the traditional formulation of Irish citizenship laws had to do with the status of emigrants and Northern Ireland. Those are the core values, not allowing the granting of Irish citizenship as a device for obtaining EU citizenship.

Originally posted by Victor
However they did allow residence for such people in the UK during all those years.

I don’t follow your point here (I’m not being evasive, I just don’t really follow what you are saying here.)

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"Actually Bonkey, far from being just another "if" and "but" or "maybe". the preliminary ruling of the Advocate-General is accepted by the full-rulings of the European Court of Justice in 90% of cases. Chances are overwhelmingly that the Chen ruling will be the ruling in August.

Right...so 90% is not an 'if' or a' maybe'. Its a certainty then, yes? I think you need to refresh your mathematical knowledge if you believe that.

Furthermore, the implication you are drawing from the Chen case most certainly is an 'if' or a 'maybe', as the main judgement makes it abundantly clear that it is applied because the people in question pose no risk of being a burden to the state. You are picking up on a choice of terminology which might remain in the final judgement, and then which might be used at some point in the future to mount a challenge which might be successful. Oh, and given that each nation is in charge of its own citizenship laws, etc. it is also the case that this ruling might be considered by an EU court to be binding to all European actions, as opposed to it being a ruling in a specific country which it judges to be in line with EU requirements (e.g. if the EU requires X, and you deliver >X, your decisions will be upheld in a European court of law, but will not necessarily be then used as a new baseline for other nations to follow).

So...I see the doom and gloom you are basing aroudn the Chen case as being dependant on a minimum of four uncertainties, all of which must materialise before your scenario even can exist. So far, you've (correctly) pointed out that one of these is 90% certain. Assuming all the 4 are equally as probable, that gives your scenario about a 65% chance of eventually occurring, all else remaining unchanged.

But I don't see any signs of admitting that uncertainty in your argument. No - I see it being presented as the undermining of every last barrier our nation has to the foreigners coming in and ruining your day.

I know theres something fishy going on when 6% of the population produce 25% of the births.

I can't remember...did you bother responding to the point I raised previously about how differing birth-rates from differing developing nations vs. from developed nations would have to be factored into the whole birth-rate issue, and whether or not you were doing so?

Or is it, once again, a case of looking at the figures and drawing the conclusions you want from them?

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
(Sceptre)

I disagree. The asylum-seekers and others are using our hospitals as their personal passport-offices at the taxpayer's expense. The sacred resources of the Health-Service should not be wasted in such a way. I know theres something fishy going on when 6% of the population produce 25% of the births. And 80% of that 25% are people from outside of the EU.

We need to rid our land of the Constitutional mistake of allowing automatic citizenship on the sole basis of birth. 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 last year arrived pregnant = 1,893 women. This itself is clear evidence of citizenship/residency/passport tourism.

I have included statistics there, not hearsay.

I don't know why you quoted part of my post above this as it's got nothing to do with what I posted. The quoted part of my post (in case anyone's too lazy to work back up) was that citizenship laws have been left in the realm of the individual EU States (i.e. us) deliberately and what's above neither refutes nor adds to that.

I notice you chose not to answer the question on whether you'd read the Chen preliminary ruling though.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by sceptre
citizenship laws have been left in the realm of the individual EU States (i.e. us) deliberately

Leaving aside Arcadegame’s Rivers of Blood stuff for a minute, can you explain why it makes sense for Irish citizenship to be granted to the child in the Chen case? How do we gain from keeping a loophole that allows Irish citizenship to be used as a device to remain in the EU?

(Can we also take it as read that the preliminary ruling, while by definition not final, is a significant indication that a sustainable case has been made and is more often than not an indication of what the final ruling will be.)

sceptre

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Leaving aside Arcadegame’s Rivers of Blood stuff for a minute

(thanks)

(Can we also take it as read that the preliminary ruling, while by definition not final, is a significant indication that a sustainable case has been made and is more often than not an indication of what the final ruling will be.)

I think it'd be simpler if we did. As we all should know (and as bonkey has demonstrated) it isn't guaranteed to become the ruling but it's a basic discrimination case that is pretty likely to follow the preliminary judgement, hence it would make sense if we all proceeded on the basis that this will be followed while keeping in mind somewhere that it isn't concluded yet.

How do we gain from keeping a loophole that allows Irish citizenship to be used as a device to remain in the EU?

We don't necessarily gain, short of big investment from Mr Chen for no particular reason. I'd go as far to say that we'll never gain, given that they're going to remain in the UK by all accounts (obviously there's a VAT and possible income tax gain to the UK exchequer) . The crucial part of the Chen case though, is that it was part of the ruling that Catherine Chen (the child) had to have access to resources significant enough to pay her own way so that no EU State would ever lose out. In other words, they can only stay if they don't cost anyone a penny. That's the bit that arcadegame is leaving out when building a house of raging hordes of Nigerian corner beggars on top.

Obviously, as you've gathered, I don't like the way these arguments are being framed. I can understand the idiot FF councillors and MEP candidates painting this as some vindication of paranoia as they don't know any better (not that this excuses them) but in the case of McDowell and his press release last week, either he's suddenly stupid or he's lying.

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The contention of the Masters is simply that women are arriving from abroad in a late stage of pregnancy, sometimes only arriving for the first time in hospital while actually in labour. While the number of births concerned are a small portion of total national births, they report this is happening often enough to be a strain on the system.

It's not just foreign residents, but also Irish nationals and Irish residents.

Originally posted by ishmael whale
While the Masters have later disassociated themselves from the decision to hold a referendum, they have not explained how additional resources would address the problem of maternity units coping with cases where they do not have any medical history on the mother presenting for delivery. But that’s another days’ work.

In 1980 the sytem had capacity to handle the peaks and troughs of 75,000 births per year. It can now only handle 50,000-60,000 per year at a stretch. Providing some redundant capacity in the system is needed. This needs to be done in the number of bed spaces and the scheduling of staff (and in peaks providing over-time and/or temporary staff) though the peaks and troughs in the annual birth pattern. Birth is one of those thing that should have 6-9 months advance notice of when you need to commit the maxium of resources.

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I think you’re back to assuming the question. The original phrase ‘cherish all the children of the nation equally’ was included in the 1916 Proclamation with the intention to express the value that Protestants and Catholics would be treated equally.

"All children are born equal, but some are born more equal than others."

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I don’t follow your point here (I’m not being evasive, I just don’t really follow what you are saying here.)

What I'm saying is that Irish citizens have had the right to live in Britain for hundreds of years. Chen is not somthing new.

ishmael whale

Victor

Just to make sure we are not talking at cross purposes, all I am saying is that the Masters have reported that women are arriving from abroad in a late stage of pregnancy often enough to be a strain on the system. This is not to be confused with total figures for births to non-nationals which have been inaccurately presented by others as evidence of this phenomenon. I am simply pointing out that there is reasonable evidence of people coming here to exploit a loophole.

I am not suggesting that tides of non nationals are sweeping across our shore, breeding the true Gael out of existence. I’m only trying to point out that there is an issue. It seems reasonable to me that we would address an issue if one exists. For example, I don’t see any particular case for our laws providing that Mrs Chen’s child should have Irish citizenship.

The best that has been said of present legislation is that if people obtain Irish citizenship for their children and live elsewhere in the EU it doesn’t hurt us and may not hurt the states where they reside. However, if we sitting down with a clean sheet of paper to write a new set of citizenship laws I can’t see why we would feel a need to include children of people who enter the country briefly to establish a device for remaining in another EU country.

I’m again a little uncertain about what point you are trying to make when you say "All children are born equal, but some are born more equal than others." All I can say, and this may or may not address the point you are making, is that of course children of non-nationals who legitimately reside in the country should be granted citizenship. But the present situation seems to make no sense.

You are right to say that Irish citizens have had the right to live in Britain for hundreds of years. That is not new. I might suggest that Chen is something new, otherwise she would hardly need to pursue a case to Europe.

gubugirl

Taking Bonkeys and SoulSurgeon's point that this thread is merely repeating arguments thrashed out in the other one, now two threads, can we all move over there???

My last word on this thread is:

Don't Delay it - Defeat it

sceptre

Originally posted by gubugirl
Taking Bonkeys and SoulSurgeon's point that this thread is merely repeating arguments thrashed out in the other one, now two threads, can we all move over there???

sceptre says move (bringing coherency)

ishmael whale

Originally posted by gubugirl
Taking Bonkeys and SoulSurgeon's point that this thread is merely repeating arguments thrashed out in the other one, now two threads, can we all move over there???

My last word on this thread is:

Don't Delay it - Defeat it

How about we drag this thread out by all having a last word that we all respond to?

My last word - a good slogan is always a substitute for calm reflection.

bobbyjoe

all I am saying is that the Masters have reported that women are arriving from abroad in a late stage of pregnancy often enough to be a strain on the system

Links? facts? figures?
No they didn't

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4017

"Minister McDowell initially gave as his sole reason for embarking on a referendum a meeting at which the Masters of the Dublin Maternity Hospitals had 'pleaded with me to change the law in relation to this. They didn't ask for additional resources they were asking me to change the law'.

It has since emerged that the Masters did nothing of the kind and, contrary to the impression given by the Minister, the Masters had been invited by Minister McDowell's officials to meet him in October 2002. In a statement the two Masters concerned have said that they did not ask the Minister for Justice to change the law or hold a referendum. So what is the Minister playing at? Drs Sean Daly and Michael Geary say that they had given no opinions as to what the government should do about legislative or constitutional changes in relation to the status of non-nationals.

And it turns out that the two masters had not sought the meeting with the Minister in the first place. Instead, they had been invited by his officials to attend a meeting, in October, 2002."

My last word

Just say No!

SoulSurgeon

Just a few thoughts here.

McDowell is not only confusing voters but what he saying can be interpreted by wider international community as "don`t come to Ireland to give birth here or you will have a righ to reside in EU as ordinary resident based on Chen case"(which is far from truth)

So what happens next, someone in the country X read this news and think wow I have to go there and get right to reside in EU, lol

I can only imagine people arriving in Ireland, give birth and aftewards civil servants have to expain them sorry that was a mistake. People from country X saing how come? Irish minister for Justice said we are to have right to reside in EU.

The last thing Fianna Fail needs at the moment is a mess like that.

In my humble opinion it will be fair to ask Minister McDowell compensate this people travel expenses, etc, becouse his message would encouraged them to come here and give birth.

Some would say ok but what about people occuping the hospitals beds? Well the numbers aren`t so big and would be smaller people if people in charge of immigration, etc would used a bit more logic. The healthcare crisis caused by bad managemt and lack/misuse of resourses in general not by small group of pregnant women

Perhaps its not to late for Department of Justice and FF PD goverment to rethink/restate their positon.


All the best,

Soul Surgeon.