How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

arcadegame2004

A particularly intriguing aspect of these minutes are the acknowledgement that most of those non-nationals giving birth in the Dublin hospitals were "asylum seekers". So much for the claims of the no-side that loads of them are just people here on work-permits.

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe I read the link you gave me, and its factual inaccuracy was interesting. Take for example this part of the paragraphy linked to, while you conveniently omitted to include in your quoting:

"As Northern Ireland`s parties prepared for talks on the future of the Good Friday Agreement in London later this month, Mr Paisley said: ``Anyone who argued that the Belfast Agreement could not be changed has clearly been proven wrong by the actions of the Dublin government.

``In holding a referendum to amend Articles Two and Three of the Irish Constitution, the Irish government are unilaterally amending the 1998 Agreement."

Articles 2 and 3? THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THEM. We are voting on Article 9. Articles 2 and 3 are not being voted on.

This may not have initially been clear to the SDLP and DUP. The DUP were alwasy going to make claims like this as they are already opposed to the agreement. They needed need this referendum as a reason to be against the GFA.

As for SF, their opposition to the referendum relates to their attempts to score political points in the South by criticising the Govt, as well as the fact that they are perhaps the most left-wing party in the Dail.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
This is just part of the no-side's demonisation of anyone supporting a "Yes" vote as racist.

It's not anyone, just you.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Articles 2 and 3? THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THEM. We are voting on Article 9. Articles 2 and 3 are not being voted on.

The scope and effect of articles 2 (and possibly 3?) are directly being affected, though, which makes Paisley's comment arguably justified.

If not, then what would be to prevent us passing a constitutional Amendment which basically said "Irish citizenship shall only be extended to descendants of current citizens of the state, dwelling within the borders of teh state, notwithstanding any other articles in this constitution".

We'd wipe out what Article 2 says, but at the same time would leave the article itself unaffected. By your logic, Paisley would have no grounds for complaint then either, as the article itself wasn't changed....even though its applicability was.

Also, even if Paisley is misrepresenting the situation, this doesn't make an article quoting him exactly any less factually correct than if he were telling the truth. If Paisley said that he believed in Casper the Friendly Giant Invisible Hamster and the paper correctly quoted him, it would still have no relevance to any facts that the article carried beside that.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, you should know that Irish people did not have the children of asylum-seekers in mind when we voted "Yes" (including me) to the GFA 6 years ago. We DID NOT.

We intended this provision of the agreement giving citizenship on the basis of birth alone to give Irish citizenship to Northern Nationalists. It was only after we passed that that such a big increase in asylum-seekers happened.

This referendum does what the Irish people WANTED to do 6 years ago by continuing to give Irish citizenship to NI nationalists (by saying that you still get Irish citizenship if you are the child of a person born on the island of ireland) without the unintended loophole whererby asylum-seekers travel to Ireland to claim citizenship for their child.

Irish people do not want it to continue to be possible for asylum-seekers to be able to travel to Ireland in pregnancy to claim citizenship for their children.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, you should know that Irish people did not have the children of asylum-seekers in mind when we voted "Yes" (including me) to the GFA 6 years ago. We DID NOT.

I couldn't care less what anyone did or did not have in mind.

The simple fact is that the proposed change will impact the scope and impact of the article(s?) that we amended.

If we say that this in no way is relevant because the article itself is not being changed, then we can do exactly what I said earlier to undo all that we changed without rewording the article, and still argue that we haven't changed the article.

It was only after we passed that that such a big increase in asylum-seekers happened.

You persist with this fiction. Do I need to post and explain the figures for you again to show that in actual fact, the figures did not have a big increase in or post-1998?

This referendum does what the Irish people WANTED to do 6 years ago by continuing to give Irish citizenship to NI nationalists (by saying that you still get Irish citizenship if you are the child of a person born on the island of ireland) without the unintended loophole whererby asylum-seekers travel to Ireland to claim citizenship for their child.

I haven't claimed otherwise. I've claimed that its altering the scope of an article which was part of the GFA, and therefore Paisley's claim is arguably justified.

You may argue that the manner in which the scope is being changed does not affect them, but - quite honestly - thats for them to decide and accept, not you. At the very least, not discussing it with them first was a move of staggering conceit and stupidity.

Irish people do not want it to continue to be possible for asylum-seekers to be able to travel to Ireland in pregnancy to claim citizenship for their children.

You keep saying this as though its some sort of established fact. Isn't this what the entire referendum is supposed to be deciding?

jc

arcadegame2004

"quote:

---

Irish people do not want it to continue to be possible for asylum-seekers to be able to travel to Ireland in pregnancy to claim citizenship for their children.

---

You keep saying this as though its some sort of established fact. Isn't this what the entire referendum is supposed to be deciding?" (Bonkey)

Bonkey, it is an established and undisputed fact that under the Constitution as it stands, the children of asylum-seekers born here get Irish citizenship. No it isn't what the referendum is supposed to find out. We know it already.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Irish people do not want it to continue to be possible for asylum-seekers to be able to travel to Ireland in pregnancy to claim citizenship for their children.

Originally posted by Bonkey
You keep saying this as though its some sort of established fact. Isn't this what the entire referendum is supposed to be deciding?"

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, it is an established and undisputed fact that under the Constitution as it stands, the children of asylum-seekers born here get Irish citizenship. No it isn't what the referendum is supposed to find out. We know it already.

Wow! Your word mixing is slimier than a politician answering the question that wasn't asked.

Have you noticed how spammy and repetitive your posts are? It's like theres infinite monkey's behind an infinite amount of typewriters hoping to type something vaguely Shakespearean, but well not quite making it. On this thread, the following people have posted.

Total Posts: 278 
User Posts 
arcadegame2004  91 (33%)
MadsL  25 
bonkey  20 
Ryvita  13 
Frank Grimes  12 
Tommy Vercetti  11 
cdebru  11 
bobbyjoe  10 
BuffyBot  8 
Victor  8 
Earthman  7 
ishmael whale  7 
Cork  6 
Gurgle  6 
sixtysix  5 
sceptre  5 
MrPudding  3 
Georgiana  3 
Stark  3 
zooz  3 
dathi1  2 
Redleslie  2 
chewy  2 
whosurpaddy  2 
JHMEG  2 
SantaHoe  1 
Capt.Sparrow  1 
Typedef  1 
Agent Orange  1 
Sherlock  1 
sleepwalker  1 
Honkytonk  1 
daveirl  1 
Kobie  1 
Imposter  1 
Wolfie  1

Your other thread.

Total Posts: 92 
User Posts 
arcadegame2004  20 (22%)
ishmael whale  12 
gubugirl  11 
Victor  8 
sceptre  8 
bonkey  7 
Gurgle  5 
chewy  3 
SoulSurgeon  3 
Earthman  2 
Tommy Vercetti  2 
Memnoch  2 
AngelofFire  2 
gandalf  1 
vorbis  1 
Rock Climber  1 
bobbyjoe  1 
MrPudding  1 
Ellesmere  1 
Cork  1

Superman's thread

Total Posts: 10 
User Posts 
arcadegame2004  3 (30%)
bonkey  1 
ArthurDent  1 
TuathaDeDanaan  1 
bobbyjoe  1 
Superman  1 
Imposter  1 
Frank Grimes  1

PS can you learn how to use the quote function properly?

arcadegame2004

Victor, I know how to use the quote function except for one thing. I don't know how to get that "Originally posted by x" thing working. Can you help me?:)

AngelofFire

something which hasnt been mentioned on this thread yet. the government have not gotten a green paper or white paper so they can go ahead with this referendrum. Also the government have failed to provide any accurate statistics to support changing the contitution- which is a serious matter as this could give the government the liscence to bring in any immigration law they want.in the context of a european and local election it is clear that this is just a cynical ploy on behalf of the government who are trying to sway in their favour an electorate to whom they have broken every promise.

Changing the constitution is a delicate matter and should be postponed until 3 months after the elections so that the issue can be properly debated.

arcadegame2004

Changing the constitution is a delicate matter and should be postponed until 3 months after the elections so that the issue can be properly debated.

Angel, we will then be having the Presidential Election. Will you then consider holding that at the same time to be and attempt to drum up racism?

Or would you have us conscripted out to the polling-stations for the THIRD time this year?

I have respect for the intelligence of the Irish people. I don't think you need to be a rocker-scientist to understand the amendment.

I think the reason the "No" side want a delay is that they know they'll lose.

AngelofFire

No this is a delicate issue and needs time to be debated in a rational manner. the government have approached this in a politically partisan way and have made no request to the all party oireachtas committee.

arcadegame2004

Given the games played by Fine Gael and Labour in 2002 when the Government had consulted the opposition about a referendum on judicial-reform, I suspect the Opposition parties would have used such a "consultation" process as a means to score political points rather than contribute to the debate in a practical manner.

I strongly disagree with you. This issue has been the subject of considerable debate amongst ordinary people since the GFA was passed. We never expected the GFA to be abused by asylum-seekers arriving here in pregnancy to get to the hospital to give birth. This system was have at the moment is manifestly stupid and anyone can tell that it is being used to get citizenship for the babies. This is especially going to be the case after the Chen judgement. Prepare to build a lot of hospitals if you vote "No" because a LOT of people facing deportation from the UK and other EU states are bound to come here either as pregnant women or with pregnant girlfriends to claim not only citizenship for their child but also an EU passport and EU residency for themselves.

Why else are 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 who arrived in Ireland in 2003 pregnant on arrival? Don't give me this bull about it being for "cultural reasons". They arrived in Europe probably months ago. They know we have a law allowing citizenship for the child solely on the basis of birth. Of course they are going to be tempted to make their way to Ireland pregnant. Why wouldn't they when they know having a child here - especially after the Chen ruling, will greatly strengthen their chances of staying in Ireland, especially with our pathetic 5% deportation-rate.

After 6 years of abuse of out system by 60,000 bogus asylum-seekers, the Irish peopel do not want yet another delay. Delay means MORE opportunity for abuse. And that is just not on because no other EU state allows such a loophole.

Angel you are not going to be affected by this because the text of the amendment says that anyone already with Irish citizenship doesn't lose it. Do not side with those who will allow the abuse of the Irish Health-Service and taxpayer. We effectively have an open-door at present.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, it is an established and undisputed fact that under the Constitution as it stands, the children of asylum-seekers born here get Irish citizenship. No it isn't what the referendum is supposed to find out. We know it already.

arcade.....did you even read what I was quoting and responding to?

Here is is again, and I'll highlight the bit that I was clearly referring to :

Irish people do not want it to continue to be possible for asylum-seekers to be able to travel to Ireland in pregnancy to claim citizenship for their children.

This - the piece I've bolded, lest you still don't understand - is complete supposition on your part. In fact, people have posted links to surveys showing that the populace don't even want the referendum at this time, and the outcome is by no means certain at this stage, so you have no possible grounds that I can see for making this statement regarding what the people want.

So allow me to repeat myself, only being a little bit clearer so you cannot misunderstand me again.

You cannot possibly know what the Irish people do or do not want. The whole point of the referendum is to determine that want, with respect to this issue.

Presenting your want as that of the people is not only inaccurate, its blatantly and indefensibly misleading.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why else are 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 who arrived in Ireland in 2003 pregnant on arrival?

I've suggested a multitude of times what you need to do to be able to determine with any degree of confidence why this is.

To date, you've singularly avoided actually checking the figures to see if they can defend your hypothesis...for whatever reason. However, in the absence of that research, that question cannot be answered with anything more than a finger-in-the-air guesstimate.

Don't give me this bull about it being for "cultural reasons".

Why not? There is statistical evidence to back the birth-rate point I have made before that you're now dismissing as bull. What statistical evidence do you have? Oh yes - the claim that asylum seekers jumped massively in number in 1998 which I have since debunked, but which you continue to mention as though it were true.

They arrived in Europe probably months ago.

Supposition.

Also, lets nor forget that you have these people specifically targetting Ireland as a destination in some posts, and yet pointing out that masses of them have already been refused asylum in other countries on there way here in others.

They know we have a law allowing citizenship for the child solely on the basis of birth.

Supposition.

Of course they are going to be tempted to make their way to Ireland pregnant.

Again, I point you to the figures you supplied about...what was it....75% of some group (Nigerians) already habing bee refused asylum in England. Now you expect us to believe that Ireland and its pregnancy loophole was always their target?

If you could at least put forward a consistent argument, it would be easier to debunk.

Why wouldn't they when they know having a child here - especially after the Chen ruling, will greatly strengthen their chances of staying in Ireland, especially with our pathetic 5% deportation-rate.

And there you go again. Like your bogus 1998 "jump" in numbers, the ruling of the CHen case has already been pointed out to you as specifically mentioning that it was made because the Chens would not be dependant on the state. While you believe there may possibly be room for further cases to be based on a particular phrase in theChen ruling, this basically means that the Chen ruling - in and of itself - has no impact like the one you are suggesting. And yet, you continue to misrepresent it as fact.

I'm wondering.....do you actually remember the insulting remarks you made to someone else recently about their nationality because the information they were presenting was inaccurate? Its nice to see you apply the same standards to your own arguments.

After 6 years of abuse of out system by 60,000 bogus asylum-seekers, the Irish peopel do not want yet another delay.

In one of the threads, someone posted a link to a survey which said otherwise. I don't recall you actually explaining why this was wrong....but you apparently seem to have decided thats the case. Anf given your proclivity for posting on these threads, one can only conclude that you have already seen it.

We effectively have an open-door at present.

And - as I have pointed out a myriad of times, and which I don't think you've answered once yet - exactly what makes you think adding another rule to the ones we have and don't enforce at the moment will result in any less of an open door???

jc

gubugirl

arcadegame - That 58% figure you keep on quoting has been effectively challenged, questioned, debated and debunked in this and other threads. It is now stretching credulity that you continue to trot it out regardless.

Are you here to have a debate and discuss issues rationally or is what you're really about repeating the same old hotch-potch of myth, fear and manipulation of statistics in the hope that some of it will stick?

You know, you've a lot in common with the proposers of this amendment. I notice that McDowell and Harney were busy mudding the waters again yesterday with the launch of the PDs Yes campaign with the slogan 'Citzenship Matters'.

And this from the party that sat in government while Irish citizenship was put on the market for purchase in the passports for sale scandal!

ishmael whale

Enjoyable as it is to bat Arcadegame about, there is still an actual issue here.

Taking it back to basics, the maternity hospitals have reported that persons are presenting to them who seem to be entering the state for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. Their reasoning for saying this seems to be that people are arriving in the state close to term and leaving shortly afterwards. This reasoning would seem to get support from the Chen case – where Mrs Chen is understood to have been advised by her lawyer to give birth in Northern Ireland as a device for obtaining Irish citizenship for her child and as a result, potentially, residence in the UK for herself. Either Mrs Chen had the good fortune to find an extremely creative lawyer, or else this device is known by immigration lawyers.

The use of wild statistics have seen the case overstated, but it would equally seem unrealistic to maintain that no-one is availing of this loophole.

I think it is reasonably well accepted that the referendum in 1998 was focused on the GFA, and citizenship was not particularly in anyone’s mind as we voted on it. That means its fair enough to hold a referendum only six years later. Maybe Irish people want everyone born on the island to be given Irish citizenship, even if they are simply children of people using this as a device to obtain residency in some other EU state or people who have entered the country illegally. But this is really the first time the question has been put to them in these terms.

The essential question that I still don’t see an answer to is why we should grant citizenship in situations such as the Chen case. The only answer I have seen is, essentially, if someone claims Irish/EU citizenship (or residency on the basis of an Irish child) in another EU state its no skin off our nose and, to the extent that the Chen case seems to require a person to have means, possibly no skin off the nose of the other EU state. I don’t see that amounting to a case for inclusion on the basis of some core value of openness. To be honest, it just seems a little lazy and to express a feeling that Irish citizenship doesn’t amount to much anyway.

arcadegame2004

Whether future Mrs.Chen's choose to stay in Ireland or not, the issue of the cost to our Health-Service and the blocking of beds for citizenship/passport purposes is still a major issue.

Georgiana

Well done on producing the stats re posting. Stand back folks and consider what is happening!

ishmael whale

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Whether future Mrs.Chen's choose to stay in Ireland or not, the issue of the cost to our Health-Service and the blocking of beds for citizenship/passport purposes is still a major issue.

It may (or may not) be a side issue, but it's certainly not the main issue. For what its worth, as I understand it Mrs Chen gave birth in Northern Ireland so the issue of the impact on the Irish health services is completely irrelevant.

An example of a significant issue, which I'm still not clear about, is why we should allow Irish citizenship to be used as a device to obtain residence in another EU state. How is that a core value?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The use of wild statistics have seen the case overstated, but it would equally seem unrealistic to maintain that no-one is availing of this loophole.

Surely, then, the correct first step to take would be firstly to fully analyse the problem and produce the most accurate figures possible on the abuse, rather than on the births as a whole?

Instead, our first step is to make the decision, and later on...when we see the impact....we can figure out what it was we were trying to do.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the nature of this campaign and any referendum campaign is such that no matter how many figures were released their veracity or meaning would be disputed by either side.

bobbyjoe

Taking it back to basics, the maternity hospitals have reported that persons are presenting to them who seem to be entering the state for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. Their reasoning for saying this seems to be that people are arriving in the state close to term and leaving shortly afterwards.

How many?
The Masters of the Universe sorry Maternity hospitals have distanced themselves from the referendum. There's a few links on previous pages to articles about it.
Why are we being asked to make a decision like this without proper facts and figures? Repeating my previous questions and backed up by Angelfire.

Why is this referendum being rushed why hasn’t there been any proper debate about immigration here?
why isn’t there an Oireachtas All Party Committee to consider the issue?
Why no submissions from all interested groups,
Why no Green paper?


<The oldest trick in the political book>
When you party is screwed in the polls whip up a storm about a controversial issue and scare the public about some bogus issue. Immigration is the obvious and perfect issue for this.
</The oldest trick in the political book>

I thought the yes's would win but the tide seems to be changing and I have faith in the electorate to see through the crap. Hopefully the NO side will get their asses in gear for the last push.

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe, I don't see any evidence of the "tide-changing" beyond a few desperate "No" supporters ringing Liveline. I recall that before the GFA referendum,. a NI radio program allowed people to ring in with their "Yes" or "No" views, and they got 55% against the GFA in NI. On the day it was 72% in favour.

I believe that truly accurate polls are the ones conducted based on a representative sample, not just those who happening to be listening to a radio-program at a particular 40 minute interval. BTW I wasn't listening to yesterday's Liveline program until the repeat on "The Irish Collection" on RTE Radio 1. Anyway, I have tried in the past to get through to the Liveline program on the phone and it is ALWAYS engaged. I had to try 20 times to get my phone-vote through on Eurovision.

Imagine if it was like that at polling-stations! Imagine if we all had to get through in 40 minutes and then everyone else is told, sorry you can't vote! Wouldn't be very representative would it?

I think that internet polls are more representative though because even people at work sometimes sneak online for a little while and take part in the polls. The most accurate of the online polls tends to be the one by the Irish Independent, which correctly forecast a 62% "Yes" vote for the "Nice Treaty". Currently it's running at 58.3% yes, and 42.7% "No". That seems to me to be roughly how it will end up. Especially as the highest "No" vote to come out of the newspaper polls so far has been 43% in the Northwest constituency poll by the Irish Examiner/Q+A .

I am reasonably confidenc but the "Yes" side must not be complacent and I certainly won't.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bonkey
Surely, then, the correct first step to take would be firstly to fully analyse the problem and produce the most accurate figures possible on the abuse, rather than on the births as a whole?

Instead, our first step is to make the decision, and later on...when we see the impact....we can figure out what it was we were trying to do.

jc

In honesty, I don’t really see the need for profoundly detailed statistics. I’m not even sure how such statistics could be compiled, as it seems next to impossible to gather definitive information on what motivates people to come here to give birth. I think the statistics issue is a bit of a cul de sac the debate has gotten into, in fairness largely caused by wild claims from ‘yes’ voters of hordes of non-nationals sweeping across the country.

The key issue is whether or not there is a flaw. There would appear to be. The preliminary ruling in the Chen case suggests that someone can use our present law as a device to obtain residency elsewhere in the EU (accepting, if it needs to be said again, that the preliminary ruling is by definition not final, but usually a fair indication of what the final outcome will be.)

If there’s a flaw it should be fixed. The Chen case itself is an example of an attempt to use this loophole. There seems to be enough information from the maternity hospitals to suggest that she is not alone. Yes, maternity hospitals are no more able to read minds than you and I and yes, some people have tried to overblow the numbers by producing figures on all non-national births. But it is simply a fact that the maternity hospitals have stated that they get enough cases of people arriving into the country in late term to cause them problems. That’s enough of an indication to suggest that this loophole is known and availed of. I don’t see the need to wait and see if things get really silly before taking action, particularly as the problem needs a referendum to fix it.

The issue really comes down, again, to why we should extend citizenship to the child of someone entering the country simply to use it as a device to live elsewhere in the EU (or, indeed, to children of someone entering the country illegally). As I’ve said before (and I’m trying not to repeat myself, but the point doesn’t seem to have been answered) the best response I’ve seen amounts to its no skin off our nose if they live elsewhere, which doesn’t sound like a core value of Irish nationality.


For the (possible) benefit of bobbyjoe, in case you missed this on the other posting


quote:

---

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Links? facts? figures?
No they didn't

---

Sorry, I know we're trying to kill this thread off, but they did, and I’ve posted this and other stories up in earlier threads. They just didn’t say there should be a referendum. As I’ve pointed out already (this is a side issue), additional resources does not address the absence of medical history of cases presenting.

archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/09/15/story488289275.asp

Monday, September 15, 2003 :

Non-national baby boom ‘pushes system to the brink’

By Neans McSweeney
…………….
Births to non-nationals have more than doubled in the last three years and as many as 15% of non-national expectant mums turn up either in labour or just 10 days before giving birth, new figures show.

Master of Maternity at the Rotunda Hospital’s Dr Michael Geary said some women are travelling from abroad very late in their pregnancy. He said women from outside of Ireland are landing at our ports and airports and heading straight for hospital. “It’s all just a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.

bobbyjoe

ishmael whale
Wasn't going to bother replying but....
Firstly go check the difference between asylum seeker and non-national its been mentioned here several times.
Secondly do you want to change the Constitution because Dr Michael Geary said SOME women. Yea in depth analysis there.

Also from that article
"A baby boom is already putting many of the nation’s maternity hospitals under strain. Births in Ireland have grown by almost 6,000 from 54,789 in 2000."

Maybe we should do something about that then. No lets blame the weakest people in the chain and feel happy.

Someone shoot this thread!!!!!!!!

Hobbes

As it stands, having an Irish born child gives no extra status to potential asylum seekers/immigrants.

Exactly. The child may get an Irish passport but it doesn't guarantee the parent/s can stay in Ireland.

In fact the only thing it does guarantee is that they will get full maternal help from the State to ensure that child is born healthy and safely.

arcadegame2004

Some on the "No" side are acting like changing the Constitutio is some earthshaking, revolutionary political event, suggesting that it is rarely done and that it should hardly ever be changed, because the existing edifice is so perfect.

I disagree. We have actually amended the Constitution 28 times in the last 83 years, which is quite a lot. Not revolutionary. They are beginning to sound a bit like those in the US who oppose any change in that country's constitution, and look where that has led ,e.g. Columbine.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Firstly go check the difference between asylum seeker and non-national its been mentioned here several times.
Secondly do you want to change the Constitution because Dr Michael Geary said SOME women. Yea in depth analysis there.

With respect I don’t think you’re following what I’m saying, and you certainly haven’t addressed my main point.

The difference between asylum seeker and non national is not particularly relevant here. If someone is only entering the country briefly to give birth, then they’re hardly applying for asylum. So your first point is really not relevant to what I’m saying at all.

Your second point is really just skipping past my main point. What I have said is if we’ve noticed something quite silly, there’s no need to wait to see if it becomes very silly. Which brings me back to my main point, that you seem to be suggesting closing the thread without answering. Why, in principle, should we provide in our laws for the granting of citizenship as a device for residency in another EU country?

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They are beginning to sound a bit like those in the US who oppose any change in that country's constitution, and look where that has led ,e.g. Columbine.

Ok I will bite... what piece of reality are you basing that on?