How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

arcadegame2004 · 26-05-2004 3:36pm

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

(Hobbes)

Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida? Our system makes it damn easy for them to get their grubby hands on EU passports to help them. No, I'm not saying all non-national mothers are in this position. But some must be, and we shouldn't be helping them with our crazy system. Nigerian crime gangs are internationally notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forgery of passports for example. They are already heavily involved in that sort of behaviour with Irish work-permits.

And still, the resources of the Health-Service are wasted on a cynical Chen-style plot to get EU-residency.

bonkey · 26-05-2004 3:46pm

Originally posted by ishmael whale
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.

Now compare this to the allegation that we need to have a referendum because people are abusing the system deliberately to gain citizenship in numbers sufficiently large that we need to do something about it.

You're basically saying that the entire reason for the referendum is bogus - that we cannot know this, so its not even worth looking for the information that might let us know this.

Originally posted by arcaegame2004

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.

<Sigh>

So now we've gone from lambasting others for using wrong figures, and defending your own, to claiming that figures effectively have no major role to play because they won't be accepted either way.

AS I said in that other thread...keep it up. The more you shift and squirm, the more you contradict yourself.That only makes one of our argument's stronger, and I'm pretty certain it ain't yours.

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The key issue is whether or not there is a flaw. There would appear to be.

Incorrect. The key issue is whether or not this is the correct solution to whatever flaw is really there....not whether or not this will change the nature of what is perceived to be the flaw.

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.)

Also thus accepting - as the Chen ruling did - that the individuals in question be granted residency only when they have access to enough resources to ensure that they will not be a burden on the state giving them residency.

So, basically, the preliminary ruling is that if you are rich enough to be in no way a burden to the country, and have a child who is an EU citizen resident in said country, you should not be deported because of the value we place on the family unit.

God, I can see the flaw there a mile away. Allowing only rich people in....shocking. I'm surprised the lefties aren't up in arms about this blatant discrimination based on wealth

If there’s a flaw it should be fixed. The Chen case itself is an example of an attempt to use this loophole.

Where is the flaw? Allowing rich people to live in your country, getting no benefit from the state and paying their own way is a flaw?????? Are you serious? If so, then please explain it to me, because I honestly cannot see the downside of allowing more rich people residency rights.

There seems to be enough information from the maternity hospitals to suggest that she is not alone.

What? There's more rich people who want the right to be resident in the EU and give us their money???

And you want to keep them out????

Why would you want to do that?

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.

Yup. Indeed it is a fact. Now, where is the evidence showing that the proposed change is actually a solution to this flaw? Answer : nowhere. There is none. (Or, more correctly, none has been posted on this forum.) Every time I've started asking for it, I either get an "its clear" from our favourite yes-voter, or a more honest "well, its not clear, but there is a problem underlying it all" answer like yours which doesn't actually answer the question asked, but rather takes us back to asking the same loop of questions.

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

Because its been done in such a way that they can only do this if they are not a burden to the country they choose to live in. The Chen judgement opens the door for the rich, but not the poor.

So, why should we not do it? The only reason I can think of is that we should find some way to force them to be resident in Ireland, so the Irish people get the benefit of their expenditure, and not some other EU nation cashing in on our largesse.

the best response I’ve seen amounts to its no skin off our nose if they live elsewhere,

So why are you discounting the "its no skin of anyone's nose because they will need to be self-sufficient to do this in the first place" answer as being inferior?

jc

bobbyjoe · 26-05-2004 3:48pm

ishmael whale
“The difference between asylum seeker and non national is not particularly relevant here.”
Thought your main point was about the Masters complaining that that their facilities were over run with people just arriving here to give birth and get passports for their babies, the original reason given for the referendum.
The diff between asylum seeker and non-national is relevant then because that 15% includes British, EU members, Americans, people working here on work permits, foreign workers or students, spouses of Irish citizens etc. By the way our health system wouldn’t work at all without non-nationals.

So the question remains how many are only “entering the country briefly to give birth”?
This number is not available for whatever reason. The best we have is SOME. So we have a referendum over a doctor saying SOME.

These figures aren’t there so the next argument was the integrity of citizenship
Citizenship is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the Island of Ireland. Will children born in Ireland in the future have to prove that one of their parents is Irish? How? DNA tests? Changing citizenship from an accident of birth to bloodline is a dangerous path to start on.

“Why, in principle, should we provide in our laws for the granting of citizenship as a device for residency in another EU country?”
We should provide in our laws protection for the people living on this Island from the richest to the poorest equally. We should not have a system which creates a situation where your rights depend on who your parents are.
The EU don’t have a problem with it why should we?

Why change the constitution when proper immigration legislation has been put on the long finger for so long
Amnesty: Referendum shows lack of policy
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/05/26/story149439.html

And still, the resources of the Health-Service are wasted on a cynical Chen-style plot to get EU-residency.

Catherine (Chen's Daughter a person) was born in Belfast not the Republic so Catherine didn't cost us a penny.

Nigerian crime gangs are internationally notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forgery of passports for example.

How will this referendum stop them doing that?

what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida?

By that logic we should stop anyone foreign from entering the country.

bonkey · 26-05-2004 3:50pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime,

Have you any idea how ridiculous it is to suggest that young children, born on this island by people seeking asylum, are terrorists or members of international organised crime...

Or when you say "people getting the passports" are you referring to someone other than who the passport is for?

And interestingly...the same could be true of Irish citizens. We too could be members of Al Qaeda and/or the triads. Better deny all of us passports as well....

No, I'm not saying all non-national mothers are in this position. But some must be, and we shouldn't be helping them with our crazy system.

Replace non-national with national, and the sentence is still as sound an argument. So..explain...why is giving you a passport a "crazy system".....and why is denying children born on this island to non-national parents the solution?

Your losing the plot here arcade....

jc

sceptre · 26-05-2004 3:51pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida? Our system makes it damn easy for them to get their grubby hands on EU passports to help them. No, I'm not saying all non-national mothers are in this position. But some must be, and we shouldn't be helping them with our crazy system. Nigerian crime gangs are internationally notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forgery of passports for example. They are already heavily involved in that sort of behaviour with Irish work-permits.

I don't have much time today but I just want to record this as where the sanity stopped. Carry on ishmael[1].

[1]and that's both a Moby Dick reference and a welcome to the boards poster ishmael to carry on a reasonable discussion as he's willing to ignore the Enoch Powell-style rantings

bonkey · 26-05-2004 3:58pm

Originally posted by 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.

Yes. Some are, I'm quite sure.

Most are saying that the problem is blown out of all proportion, there is no guarantee that the solution will address what problem there is, and that even if it did, that doesn't make it an acceptable solution.

I would have thought that after your 100+ posts over three threads you'd have a clue of what those who you were responding to were saying???

We have actually amended the Constitution 28 times in the last 83 years, which is quite a lot.

Yes indeed, And by your own admission, the current change is needed because we screwed a previous amendment up entirely. And why did we do that? Because we were in a rush to get it in place. So what lessons should we learn?

Well, you apparently have learned that we need to continue rushing things into place, without stopping to pause and consider whether or not it is a solution, whether or not it creates more problems, and whether or not it is a just solution, and that any objections should be ignored and ideally just shouted down by repeating the same dogma until the objectors get tired of pointing out the flaws in it, and ignoring the points that they don't get tired of making because, well, you can't answer them.

You'll forgive me if I learn a slightly different lesson of what is the right and wrong way to decide an issue.

jc

jc

Hobbes · 26-05-2004 4:02pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
(Hobbes)

Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida?

OMG you mean the Triads and AQ have unborn children as their members!! :rolleyes:

Did you even read what I wrote. The child gets the passport, not the parents.

Nigerian crime gangs are internationally notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forgery of passports for example.

Totally different issue tbh. According to your argument I am wondering why an Nigerian would need to forge a passport when your claiming the government is handing them out to them for nothing.

Work permits? Have you even seen what the work permit card looks like? I have, it is pretty dam hard to forge.

arcadegame2004 · 26-05-2004 4:12pm

Originally posted by Bonkey

Have you any idea how ridiculous it is to suggest that young children, born on this island by people seeking asylum, are terrorists or members of international organised crime...

Of for heaven's sakes!!! Of course I'm not saying that the baby is a terrorist!!!! I am tired of that kind kind of smart-alec interpretation and twisting and distorting of what I am saying. It is the PARENT I am talking about. Some of them will use the current system to get passports to enable gangland bosses they are assoicated with to create fake-passports. That's what I mean. Our system only helps them.

As usual we see here the hysteria of the no side. The children that are being born to asylum-seekers who are already pregnant on arrival in Ireland are being created solely to allow their parents to try to increase their changes of staying here.

I am fed up of listening every day to the growing hysteria of the organised-left in Ireland in response to ending this STUPID citizenship rule. We never intended it to be used to asylum-seekers to gain citizenship for their children. Such a use of a baby is a scandalous act, and I am determined we "Yes" voters will stamp it out on June 11th. I can't wait to see the look on Michael D's face when it happens

MrPudding · 26-05-2004 4:23pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
(Hobbes)

Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida? Our system makes it damn easy for them to get their grubby hands on EU passports to help them. No, I'm not saying all non-national mothers are in this position. But some must be, and we shouldn't be helping them with our crazy system. Nigerian crime gangs are internationally notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forgery of passports for example. They are already heavily involved in that sort of behaviour with Irish work-permits.

And still, the resources of the Health-Service are wasted on a cynical Chen-style plot to get EU-residency.

Your world is a truly scary world. And you are accusing the no side of hysteria?

MrP

arcadegame2004 · 26-05-2004 4:27pm

MrPudding what I have talked about has been mentioned in several newspapers and I will place the links here if you want me to. I might add that since you choose to refer to my world as a very scary one, I reciprocate by saying that I find your world to be one of extreme naievity.

bobbyjoe · 26-05-2004 4:29pm

The children that are being born to asylum-seekers who are already pregnant on arrival in Ireland are being created solely to allow their parents to try to increase their changes of staying here.

Wow!!
What a statement!!
Truly suprised me despite the stuff arcadegame has being saying already.
Makes me sad people actualy think like this.

Hobbes · 26-05-2004 4:34pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Of for heaven's sakes!!! Of course I'm not saying that the baby is a terrorist!!!! I am tired of that kind kind of smart-alec interpretation and twisting and distorting of what I am saying.

Only twisting is yourself, or your ability not to read what people are posting.

It is the PARENT I am talking about. Some of them will use the current system to get passports to enable gangland bosses they are assoicated with to create fake-passports. That's what I mean. Our system only helps them.

So instead of just say stealing or producing passports they get the women in their country pregnant, fly them to Ireland to have a child and make them bring back a passport.

Btw, I don't think the child can even get a passport at that age, they are normally put onto the parents passport. They might get a birth Certificate, but it would be a bit tricky forging that and getting away with it. I am pretty sure (from the experience I have had recently) that Irish Customs/INS would check up the birth certificate to ensure it was real pretty quickish.

ishmael whale · 26-05-2004 4:54pm

This is essentially a composite reply to Bonkey and bobbyjoe.
As regards statistics, I can only repeat what I’m saying. It is unreasonable to suggest that hordes are invading us. It is equally unreasonable to say that no significant use is being made of the existing loophole. If we noticed a loophole, but no-one else had, there would be a case to close it before it was used. On the other hand, someone might say if there are no practical implications why bother? All I saying is there are indications that there is a loophole, and it is being used. I think you are trying to dismiss this sustainable point with the same arguments that might be used to dismiss the more overblown positions of others.

The cornerstone of what Bonkey is saying seems to amount to that portion of the Chen ruling that relates to the requirement that a person has means. This really only repeats the ‘no skin off our nose’ or, as I said in an earlier post, potentially no skin off the nose of whatever EU state they reside in. Maybe that is enough. Maybe we should do away with the need to actually be born here, and return to a system of selling passports to foreign nationals.
I’m not being disingenuous here, maybe this is enough for some people. I just see the need for a reason to extend citizenship to people with no particular link to the place, and no intention of living here. It may do no harm for the countries they reside in, but I just don’t see why we should be involved in the picture. It’s up to those countries to decide how to deal with their immigrant populations. More to the point, I don’t see any no voter coming up with a positive reason for extending citizenship in such cases.
If the problem is that a person briefly entering the state can claim citizenship for their children, then the solution is to change the law so this is no longer the case. Unlike Arcadegame the argument for me does not pivot on reducing demand for health services. We might still experience cases of women entering the state in pregnancy to give birth and then leave, although to be honest its hard to see a motivation if they’re coming from other EU states with reasonable health services. But pressure on the Irish health services is only a side issue. The core issue is clear enough and fixable.
Bobbyjoe still seems to miss the point that the statements by the Masters is only of significant to the extent that it suggests the problem is not theoretical, so its enough to know there are ‘some’ cases. And, in fairness, you don’t answer my question “Why, in principle, should we provide in our laws for the granting of citizenship as a device for residency in another EU country?” at all. You say ‘We should provide in our laws protection for the people living on this Island’ That’s sort of the point. What is proposed is to amend the constitution to allow the Oireachtas to pass legislation that limits citizenship to people living here, and to exclude, inter alia, people just availing of the present law as a device. You just haven’t addressed this point.

Leaving aside the Foetus from Al Qaida, there is still an issue here. If present law denied citizenship in such circumstances could you make a case for inclusion?

bonkey · 26-05-2004 5:41pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
As usual we see here the hysteria of the no side.

Ah yes.

You start making allegations that the passports are now not just about gaining citizenship, but are a risk in terms of AL Qaeda, the Triads, International Crime in general, and Nigerian con-artists in specific.

We point out how ludicrous a set of statements you've just made, and thats what you're calling hysterical.

Something is hysterical here alright....

I am fed up of listening every day to the growing hysteria of the organised-left in Ireland in response to ending this STUPID citizenship rule.

Thats only because hysteria seems to be increasingly the language the yes-proponents seem able to use, so we're trying to lower ourselves to something you'll understand.

Originally posted by Ishmael Whale
I think you are trying to dismiss this sustainable point with the same arguments that might be used to dismiss the more overblown positions of others.

Not entirely. I'm pointing out that I'm not convinced this is the right solution to whatever abuse does exist, if such abuse still needs to be addressed by law.

At the moment, the only "abuse" I see left is that is that we give a child citizenship. Irish law does not guarantee the parents residency nor citizenship, nor does EU law.

Maybe we should do away with the need to actually be born here, and return to a system of selling passports to foreign nationals.

Is this the old binary argument? If you oppose draconian immigration laws, you must want an open-door policy? If you said Invading Iraq was the wrong thing, you wanted to do nothing?

Whether or not it is that argument, the response is still the same :

I wouldn't propose that at all.

We shouldn't trade one dodgy situation for another.

We should look to see what is the right situation - the one desired by the majority of the population. And although this can only be done through a referendum, we must acknowledge that - like the various abortion and divorce referenda - the public can refuse specific implementations, whilst still not wishing the status quo to remain, and thus will only support amendments which they feel make the situation better overall.

I’m not being disingenuous here, maybe this is enough for some people. I just see the need for a reason to extend citizenship to people with no particular link to the place, and no intention of living here.

But your solution "caters" for these people and "ignores" those who have some tenuous particular link to the place, no intention of living here, and who weren't even born here?????

More to the point, I don’t see any no voter coming up with a positive reason for extending citizenship in such cases.

If you look back at any of the myriad of threads which have gone before discussing what it means to be Irish, you'll see that prior to this issue even raising its head in the form of an election, a lot of people argued that being born on the island was sufficient to count yourself as being Irish. Its hardly surprising that they subsequently choose a side in a referendum which seeks to prevent that from being the case. You may not see it as a positive reason, but there will be equally many who see nothing positive - only greedy - in refusing citizenship to these people on economic grounds.

If the problem is that a person briefly entering the state can claim citizenship for their children, then the solution is to change the law so this is no longer the case.

Yes indeed. If that is the problem - and it may be - then that is indeed the solution. The question which should immediately follow is what is the right way to change the law to achieve this.

If you disagree with either the former or the latter (that this is the problem, and the right solution), then - in my opinion - voting No is perfectly justifiable.

If present law denied citizenship in such circumstances could you make a case for inclusion?

I could make a case for inclusion of many but not all of those who will be excluded by the proposed amendment. There is a possibility (a good one, even) that the government will legislate (as it retains the power to do so) the inclusion of these many - or many of the many at least - but I am still unconvinced that this is the correct way to deal with the others - those that are abusing the system. I could well be wrong. Maybe legislative inclusion is the realistic best option, but - to me - the government hasn't taken the right steps to assure me that they will take acceptable legislative action to include those who I feel should be included. As a result, the amendment is still - in my opinion - too risky to support as an acceptable middle ground, as it will put control squarely out of the people's hands and into what is effectively a black box, which we have no idea what will come out of.

jc

<edited to fix vB Code>

bobbyjoe · 26-05-2004 7:50pm

ishmael whale
“I don’t see any no voter coming up with a positive reason for extending citizenship in such cases.”
By saying extending it sounds like we are adding something new but this has been the rule since the inception of the state. I quite like the fact that all children born here are treated equally and it doesn’t matter who your parents are. This referendum is about taking away citizenship not extending anything.

“If the problem is that a person briefly entering the state can claim citizenship for their children, then the solution is to change the law so this is no longer the case”
By “briefly entering the state” I take it you mean pregnant women arriving ready to give birth putting themselves and the child in danger. Then we should change the law, not the constitution. There are already International Air Transport Association guidelines which prevent women who are seven months pregnant getting on planes. If the Government was so concerned about these women or their babies we could enforce those guidelines. Also if they are so concerned about health why are people dieing on waiting lists and on trolleys? And lastly there has been no evidence produced suggesting this is the case bar one Master from a maternity ward saying SOME.

“Bobbyjoe still seems to miss the point that the statements by the Masters is only of significant to the extent that it suggests the problem is not theoretical, so its enough to know there are ‘some’ cases.”

If people are arriving in the late stages of pregnancy than proper facilities are needed to help them.
Increase information and education amongst the non-national community to go to hospital earlier. Don’t scapegoat ‘non-nationals’ because our policies have lead to a run down in services
Maternity hospitals in St James and Loughlinstown have been closed.
The budget for the National Maternity Hospital in Holles St, fell from €5,726,000 in 2003 to €5,132,000 in 2004
The birth rate has increased after a dip in the late 80’s early 90’s.
There has been an increase in Irish people living abroad returning home to live. (Those guys haven’t paid tax in years lets blame them)
Irish women in maternity hospitals are often cared for by Filipino nurses, Indian doctors, Canadian radiographers and I’m sure there’s more! But we don’t want these people having a baby here because they take up resources from Irish people. Bit hypocritical considering they are a tiny proportion of births anyway!

The Masters of the Maternity wards are looking for additional resources.
They have already stated that they want nothing to do with the referendum and didn’t ask for it.

“Why, in principle, should we provide in our laws for the granting of citizenship as a device for residency in another EU country?”
Hate to answer a question with a question but why should we remove rights from our citizens for the EU (who have no problem with it).

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it cos you usually make things worse.

“If present law denied citizenship in such circumstances could you make a case for inclusion?”
Yep

bonkey · 27-05-2004 6:59am

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
By saying extending it sounds like we are adding something new but this has been the rule since the inception of the state.

Yes, but it has only been a constitutional right since 1998 when the GFA Amendments came in.

Before that, it was leglislated for.

jc

arcadegame2004 · 27-05-2004 8:09pm

Bonkey, were asylum-seekers mentioned during the explanation of the GFA to the Irish people? Was the possibility of them using our now Constitutionally-enshrined rights of citizenship based solely on birth mentioned? No.

There is a clamour in this country to get rid of the baby-racket and I am confident that will happen. I am convinced that while this system was in place from 1921, that the referendum and the GFA made knowledge of it far more widespread. At least before 1998 Dail Eireann could easily change the system.

Victor · 27-05-2004 9:30pm

Originally posted by 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?

Babies obviously kill people.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004 Yes but what if the people getting the passport are terrorists or members of international-organised crime, e.g. Chinese triads, Al-Qaida? Our system makes it damn easy for them to get their grubby hands on EU passports to help them.

But it's perfectly OK to give Irish passports to IRA and other terrorists and to ex-PSNI/RUC and ex-prison officers so they can keep their British passports "clean" while working as "private security" in Iraq / Israel / random country at war, while using their interrogation skills?

arcadegame2004 · 27-05-2004 10:19pm

Originally posted by Victor
But it's perfectly OK to give Irish passports to IRA and other terrorists and to ex-PSNI/RUC and ex-prison officers so they can keep their British passports "clean" while working as "private security" in Iraq / Israel / random country at war, while using their interrogation skills?

No, I'm against that too Victor.

Victor · 27-05-2004 11:00pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No, I'm against that too Victor.

So why all the hullaballoo about stopping babies having Irish citizenship when the babies have done no wrong but the terrorists / mercenaries have? Surely we (rather the minister) have our priorities the wrong way around.

arcadegame2004 · 27-05-2004 11:08pm

Because the babies are being used by their parents for their parents own benefit. Nigerian gangs are using EU passports to create fake ones, same with work-permits. You can't prevent all types of criminality arising from passports Victor, but this is one kind we can prevent. I will not change my mind and vote "No". The implications having a system that allows unlimited numbers of non-national pregnant women to get Irish citizenship for their babies here are potentially chaotic and unsustainable from the Health-Service's point of view. The Health-Service cannot cope with unlimited demand. Indeed our maternity hospitals can only barely cope with their existing demand.

Hobbes · 27-05-2004 11:19pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Because the babies are being used by their parents for their parents own benefit. Nigerian gangs are using EU passports to create fake ones, same with work-permits.

Sorry if you get offended, but your starting to rant. Also you have no clue what you are talking about.

Currently parents do not get Irish passports when they have a kid (even if one parent is Irish). They have to wait 6 years at least.

As for the baby. Children are not normally issued passports. They are put on the parents passport. So I don't know how you think this helps making fake passports.

Also WTF has work permits got to do with having children here? You cannot get a work permit for having a child. You get free medical to ensure the child is born safely. Thats all. Now if the mother married an Irish person they get a work permit, but not great to get a job when your having a baby is it?

I'd be surprised if you even knew what the immirgration process was. Also can you link to the news stories of faked work permits being sold in Ireland? I don't recall any and I have seen the work permit, it is exceptionally hard to fake. Anyone who had the resources to fake/alter them wouldn't need to send pregnant women here to get more.

The implications having a system that allows unlimited numbers of non-national pregnant women to get Irish citizenship for their babies here are potentially chaotic and unsustainable from the Health-Service's point of view.

First up, there is no unlimited demand or boat loads of babies? Where are you getting this from? Second, are you saying that children and pregnant mothers should be denied medical services?

* incidently. I was voting yes. Your ranting is making me look at the no vote again.

arcadegame2004 · 28-05-2004 12:40am

The point about work-permits was part of the context of my explanation of Nigerian involvement in international organised crime. Information on it is everywhere on the internet. I will shortly post evidence from a newspaper about the Nigerian use of forged, copied and sold work-permits for ilelgal immigration.

Hobbes, the point I am making about my unlimited numbers point is that we have NO upper limit on the numbers allowed to claim citizenship for their babies. In other words, we must give all the babies citizenship NO MATTER how many arrive.

Of course mother's should get medical care but asylum-seekers in the EU before they get to Ireland should get such treatment in the first EU state they enter, if they are there at the time, or else in the EU state they were in before Ireland. There is huge evidence that many are having babies solely for the purposes of availing of automatic citizenship fir those babies in Ireland, to help them stay in Ireland. The Chen ruling shows that this is a highly worthwhile venture.

Originally posted by Hobbes
I'd be surprised if you even knew what the immirgration process was. Also can you link to the news stories of faked work permits being sold in Ireland?

I promise you that a link will shortly be placed on this thread.

arcadegame2004 · 28-05-2004 12:43am

The current citizenship system actually endangeres babies lives by encouraging women to travel long distances to Ireland in pregnancy, thererby endangering the lives of their unborn children.

ishmael whale · 28-05-2004 10:45am

From what I can judge, Bonkey's problem seems to be as much with the mechanism chosen to address this issue rather than the issue itself - i.e. the idea that the Orireachtas be given control. I still don't see any compelling case for extending citizenship to children of people briefly entering the state.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
This referendum is about taking away citizenship not extending anything.

True, but without endlessly circulating arguments this is because of the unintended consequences of existing legislation rather than any considered decision. We got here by mistake - maybe people want things to remain this way, but they haven't been asked yet.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
By “briefly entering the state” I take it you mean pregnant women arriving ready to give birth putting themselves and the child in danger. Then we should change the law, not the constitution. There are already International Air Transport Association guidelines which prevent women who are seven months pregnant getting on planes.

This is really just an attempt to deny the issue. Its like that old quote from Ulysses "You know why Ireland never persecuted the Jews Mr Daedalus. Its because we never let them in." The issue is about who should be covered by Irish citizenship, not what forms of transport are safe for pregnant women. There is a health issue, and you would always hope that the if the Irish health services came across a person run over by a bus or otherwise in need of help they'd provide the service first and ask about their residency rights later.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
If people are arriving in the late stages of pregnancy than proper facilities are needed to help them. Increase information and education amongst the non-national community to go to hospital earlier.

I think the point is its just inherently bad practice to travel at a late stage of pregnancy and, while you are right that media coverage suggests that not all late arrivals are people coming from abroad, its hard to see how the information gap is relevant if someone is travelling here to obtain citizenship for their child. As to the large numbers of Filipino nurses etc working in the Irish health system yes, obviously if we are granting work permits for people to come here its plain unwelcoming not to extend citizenship to their children. But as I understand it the promised legislation does extend citizenship to children of people living here for a significant period of time.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
why should we remove rights from our citizens for the EU (who have no problem with it).

Can I suggest that we waited to see if some other EU member state took exception we might be regarded as being a tad irresponsible. (You also seem to be suggesting that we let the EU decide for us what is an acceptable on Irish citizenship, which when you think about it is not a good approach) I take it if the UK fought the Chen all the way up to Europe its a fair (and unsurprising) indication that they don't particular see someone briefly entering Ireland so they can use Irish citizenship of a child as a reason for UK residence is a brilliant idea.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
“If present law denied citizenship in such circumstances could you make a case for inclusion?”
Yep

And that case is?

Saruman · 28-05-2004 11:36am

At frist i was going to straigh out vote no.. then i read whats being changed on www.refcom.ie and i did not think it was so bad but on further thought.. i think im going to vote no.

I would like to see a more multicultural Ireland.

slightly off topic though but it seems to be on everyones mind in this thread. Lots of people dont want foreigners coming here scrounging off the state and going straight on wellfare. Could the shystem not be changed so that if you enter ireland to work you sign a waiver where by you DONT have the right to wellfare for 6 months to a year and so have to get work? If we changed to something like that and let more people into the country as legal immigrants who can work then we would not have much of an "illegal immigrant" problem. We would still have foreign people here and anyone who has a problem with that would be racist or prejudice.

Oh and my girlfriend is American. I asked her if a child of illegal immigrants is born in the US is a US citizen. Well it is, any child born in the US is a US citizen. just like it is here now. So if its good enough for them its good enough for me!

Hobbes · 28-05-2004 1:29pm

I read the book in refcom. It is about as impartial I have seen.

After reading it. I will be voting no.

Here is why (and you can't comment arcade until you get that news story).

It causes more problems then solves it and really changes nothing.

Currently
If Asylum is granted for one (which technically would be both) of the parents they become Irish citizens by naturalisation. The child would be Irish because it was born in Ireland.
If Asylum was not granted, the parents must leave Ireland. The child will be an Irish Citizen and is allowed stay but the parents are not. The child can return at a later time.

I am not aware of passports for new born babies (only birth certificates). They are put on the parents passport.

We can ignore children to Irish person whos spouse is from another country, as it doesn't change.

Vote passes
If Asylum is granted for one (which technically would be both) of the parents they become Irish citizens by naturalisation. The child would be Irish by naturalisation
If Asylum was not granted, the parents must leave Ireland. The child will not be an Irish citizen unless made by law. In the event the parents country refuse the child, then that child automatically becomes an Irish citizen by International Law (as is stated in the amended constitution).

So what does this mean? Nothing. All I can see from this is that it will slow down the people coming in from other counties but won't stop it. If anything it will increase on the law courts as people try to get thier child made Irish by law (which will still be allowed).

It all seems a bit xenophobic in my opinion. The world is changing, Ireland will have to too.

Frank Grimes · 28-05-2004 1:51pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Because the babies are being used by their parents for their parents own benefit. Nigerian gangs are using EU passports to create fake ones, same with work-permits. You can't prevent all types of criminality arising from passports Victor, but this is one kind we can prevent.

So along with stopping terrorism, voting yes will also stop passport fraud?

The implications having a system that allows unlimited numbers of non-national pregnant women to get Irish citizenship for their babies here are potentially chaotic and unsustainable from the Health-Service's point of view. The Health-Service cannot cope with unlimited demand. Indeed our maternity hospitals can only barely cope with their existing demand.

Should we start limiting the number of children Irish people can have so, or even better start sterilising them?

bobbyjoe · 28-05-2004 1:53pm

“ishmael whale”: True, but without endlessly circulating arguments this is because of the unintended consequences of existing legislation rather than any considered decision. We got here by mistake - maybe people want things to remain this way, but they haven't been asked yet. “

This “mistake” was just recently noticed after being in Law since 1921, put into the free state constitution in 1922, left into the 1935 Irish Citizenship act and again in 1956, then in the 1998 GFA referendum, again in the 2001 Citizenship act.
But now its suddenly discovered to be a problem in April 2004 approx 2 months before a local election.
Then we are asked to reverse how people get citizenship without any proper debate about immigration, without any legislation, without the legislation we have being enforced properly, no Oireachtas All Party Committee, no submissions from interested groups, or any Green paper.
Tagging the issue onto a European and local election where FF are down in the polls. They need something to talk about on the doorsteps don’t they? Refer back to my Oldest trick in the political book comment. I say throw this back at them and tell them to try again.

““ishmael whale”
“Its because we never let them in." The issue is about who should be covered by Irish citizenship, not what forms of transport are safe for pregnant women.”

“

““arcadegame2004”
“The current citizenship system actually endangeres babies lives by encouraging women to travel long distances to Ireland in pregnancy, thererby endangering the lives of their unborn children.”

“

My point is that one of the arguments used to vote yes is that it is dangerous to have heavily pregnant women traveling (and yes it is). Have there been any news reports about a pregnant non-national, who intends to look for citizenship, getting into difficulty while traveling here. I haven’t seen it. I’m sure we’d know all about it if there was. Do you think someone would take that risk? Shouldn’t the airlines stop them getting on a plane anyway?
I’m sure there are people presenting in the later stages of pregnancy but there are no numbers on how many of them are presenting late because they have only arrived in the country. There also several reasons for presenting late discussed elsewhere in this thread. How hard would it be to record this? Pretty easy but its not been done or hasn’t been released. Why? Because it’s such a small number?

Sorry but a comment from a Doctor about “some” where he doesn’t even know the full facts or about something that might happen isn’t enough for me to change the constitution.

““ishmael whale”
"As to the large numbers of Filipino nurses etc working in the Irish health system yes, obviously if we are granting work permits for people to come here its plain unwelcoming not to extend citizenship to their children."

“

True. But they are part of the 15% figure that’s been used repeatedly to claim that the maternity wards are being swamped by non-nationals. Never mind the fact that there has been a reduction in Maternity facilities and increase in birthrate.

““ishmael whale”
“Can I suggest that we waited to see if some other EU member state took exception we might be regarded as being a tad irresponsible. “

“

You can, but since when do we have to pre-determine what Europe wants and change our laws to suit it. Maybe we should get in line with the rest of the treaties get rid of all our opt-out clauses. Defense springs to mind (I’m totally against that but it is a point.)

““ishmael whale”
“(You also seem to be suggesting that we let the EU decide for us what is an acceptable on Irish citizenship, which when you think about it is not a good approach)”

“

Those last two comments seem to contradict each other. What I’m saying is that in 1993 the Heads of the EU states made a declaration that laws of citizenship were the sole preserve of the member states. We’ve had five referenda about or relationship with Europe and it has never been an issue. I’m sure every Government Lawyer in Europe has been through these and none have had a problem with it. Why the emergency now? See point above re elections.

““ishmael whale”
“And that case is?”

“
Firstly you’d have to assume that the 1916 proclamation didn’t include the “cherish all children equally line” also that the constitution had different citizenship criteria.
America, Canada, India, New Zeland as well as 42 other countries use this system and with whom we share a republican common law legal.
Would we even be a Republic in that case? I don’t know? The definition of a Republic doesn’t mention citizenship but I presume most Republics use common law. One article I read said Jus Solis citizenship is considered to be one of the distinguishing features of a republican constitution.
It’s a humane approach which doesn’t class people according to their parentage. We don’t class adults Lord, Sir etc why babies.
I’d also argue that it is hypocritical considering the millions of Irish living all around the world

*edited format

Imposter · 28-05-2004 2:05pm

Originally posted by Saruman
At frist i was going to straigh out vote no.. then i read whats being changed on www.refcom.ie and i did not think it was so bad but on further thought.. i think im going to vote no.

I would like to see a more multicultural Ireland.

Whether you might want to see a more multicultural Ireland I don't think voting yes or no will have any effect on that.

Originally posted by Hobbes
If Asylum was not granted, the parents must leave Ireland. The child will not be an Irish citizen unless made by law. In the event the parents country refuse the child, then that child automatically becomes an Irish citizen by International Law (as is stated in the amended constitution).

So what does this mean? Nothing. All I can see from this is that it will slow down the people coming in from other counties but won't stop it. If anything it will increase on the law courts as people try to get thier child made Irish by law (which will still be allowed).

I haven't read the refcom page but from what you said here it's only if the child is refused from the parents country that it can become Irish under international law. What countries refuse children who's parents are both citizens?

I agree that this referendum doesn't actually change much really. For me the thing it does is to put us in line with the EU. It may (and probably will) stop a few people who would otherwise abuse this loophole but I don't think this is such a problem that as much fuss as has been generated is needed.

How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Comments