How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Fr0g

I will vote yes but I have the following comments to make:

1. This is yet another ploy by the government to take attention away from the local and eu elections and the real issues Health/Crime/stealth taxes etc. they have done this many times before and by raising such a contentious issue (racism, fired up by stories about how the non-nationals are ripping us off etc.) thay have ensured that most of the media attention will be taken up debating this referendum.

2. voting yes may give the government some leeway to put proper and fair legislation in place and maybe put together a cohesive policy on immigration which has been lacking thus far

3. I welcome an injection of foreign DNA, this country has been sharing the same gene-pool for far too long.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
21% of non-national births outside of Dublin were to non-nationals.

We're talking about 15,000 then I'd say.

Eh, where does 21% come from and is it relevant? And if we have 21% x 60,500, we have at most 12,705, but then you have to take out the Dublin chunk, so well under 10,000.

You never were that strong on maths, were you?

Hobbes

Arcade I love how you ignore facts when it pleases you.

To help you... (it will be worth the week).

|-NO VOTE-------|------YES VOTE-|------------------|Reality ends here|----------------|You are here|

ishmael whale

I was going to contribute a thoughtful reflection on the cultural and historic links that underpin the citizenship entitlements of our emigrant communities, when I read this.

Originally posted by The Great Frog
I welcome an injection of foreign DNA

Steady on. What's wrong with a warm handshake and a cup of coffee?

Tuars

Originally posted by The Great Frog
2. voting yes may give the government some leeway to put proper and fair legislation in place and maybe put together a cohesive policy on immigration which has been lacking thus far

I agree with you on point 1. but I'm not sure about 2. I think the referendum is an opportunity for the government to pretend that it's actually doing something about immigration when in fact it's not really doing anything.

Whatever feelings anybody has about the Citizenship referendum I think we can agree that it only addresses a tiny and probably very insignificant fraction of immigration policy.

I am sceptical that it will solve any of the problems that the no camp are describing and I'm equally sceptical that it will take away all the liberties that the yes camp are concerned with. In other words, I think it will achieve damn all in the real scheme of things.

One reason why I would be more inclined to vote no is that this thing has "unintended side-effects" written all over it. You can bet that some case is going to come up that wasn't thought about where someone who is legitimately entitled to citizenship will be refused, and then we'll be back for the rematch in 2 years time (a la the abortion referendum).

Also, I'm a bit concerned that the government can cut spending and close maternity hospitals and then blame asylum-seekers for the pressure they put on the system.

SoulSurgeon

Greetings,

Another contributor from the 'no' camp seemed to suggest an alternative was placing restrictions on pregnant women entering the country (and seemed to think the only way they might enter the state was by air). It seems to me what is proposed is a simple and direct way of fixing a hole in our citizenship laws, without the need for strange immigration procedures screening women to see if they're pregnant and interrogating them if they are.

I would like to see were is the post that suggesting to screen women and interrogate them in case their are pregnant?

If you refering to my previous post then re read it and you`ll see that what I was suggesting is to use common sence while dealing with immigrants. If you are an immigration officer and you see a pregant women with a tourist visa one can assume that her intetion is far from just visiting Dublin. That`s was one suggestion as to how improve immigration control . So no need to exadurate here

And how you suppose some lets say from a distant country enter EU in a first place? Obviousy by air in my opinion only few can drive unnoticed throught the half of Europe to get into UK or Ireland
I would like so say again that the migration is a complex issue and alot is needed to delevop a sensible and effective approach.

Talking about Chen case (AG opinion) so far I don`t see that there is any concusive evidence that would suggest possibility for many if any non EU nationals to obtain residency based on the fact that they are parents of an Irish child.

The Oireachtas are not invaders from Mars. We elect them.

That`s right both Rainbow Goverment and Liam Lawlor were elected as well


All the best,

Soul Surgeon.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Soulsurgeon
Talking about Chen case (AG opinion) so far I don`t see that there is any concusive evidence that would suggest possibility for many if any non EU nationals to obtain residency based on the fact that they are parents of an Irish child.

I believe you are basing that opinion on the aspect of the Chen ruling that referred to Mrs.Chen's not being a burden on the State because of her medical insurance. However, suppose the ECJ, in it's final ruling, strikes out this single aspect of the preliminary ruling, thererby letting ANYONE who is the parent of EU citizens to be undeportable?

The only way to be safe is to vote "Yes".

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I believe you are basing that opinion on the aspect of the Chen ruling that referred to Mrs.Chen's not being a burden on the State because of her medical insurance. However, suppose the ECJ, in it's final ruling, strikes out this single aspect of the preliminary ruling, thererby letting ANYONE who is the parent of EU citizens to be undeportable?

The only way to be safe is to vote "Yes".

Arcade... Go and read the ruling. Citzenship is changing in the constitution but can be overridden by laws.

So if a law was passed that you mention above did pass then voting yes would have no effect as the law would supercede the constitution.

bobbyjoe

ishmael whale"
"the way to refute the points I've made is by addressing them, not by addressing the points you wish I had made."

Quoting your points then putting my opinion under them doesn't work then?

"You ask why should we deny citizenship rights to people for no discernable reason. Fine, we could just put a form up on a website and allow anyone on the globe with internet access to become an Irish citizen by returning it by e mail."

As I'vs said several times being born here is enough for me.
Currently an American with an Irish grandparent who couldn't find Ireland on a map can get citizenship and access to Europe without setting foot in the gaff.
Why's no-one complaining about that? oh yeah they'd probably be white wouldn't they!!!!!

"a flat assertion about birth alone being a reason does not bridge the gap."

I think thats where we agree to disagree. I think we have a duty of care to all children on this island, we should also treaty them all equaly. Anything less is unacceptable.

"The problem, as I have clearly stated several times, is that the present wording in the Constitution, intended only to guarentee Northern Irish citizenship rights, can be availed of by people with no particular interest in Irish citizenship other than as a device to gain residency elsewhere. "

How do you know that the current wording is only intended for Northern Irish people wanting Irish Citizenship? Jus Solis citizenship is a features of a republican constitutions and used in America, Canada, India, New Zeland as well as 42 other countries. Maybe the writers of the constitution where humane people whose Republican beliefs deemed all people equal.


This Device term you use that people will come here to secure residency rights in other EU countries.
Firstly as you know only people who can support themselves without becoming a burden on any member state could hypotheticaly speeking since it hasn't been decided yet could do this.
Secondly, no European government has asked Ireland to change its laws.
Thirdly, no European government has ever complained about those who have never been to Ireland and have no intention of even visiting Ireland but have one Irish grandparent and want to travel or reside or work in some other EU state.
Fourthly, if any EU state chooses to address this matter it can do so at the appropriate level - EU Community Law.

So I say again why should we change our traditional approach to citizenship?

Arcadegame Haven't we already established what asylum seekers are entitled to pages back. How about quiting an arguement when its proved wrong? This would stop us going in circles.

MadsL

Arcade et al;

A couple of points...

1. Asylum applications are falling. True or False. I say true, and the evidence for this is based on official Govt stats posted on the ORAC website

Applications
No. of new applications for a declaration as a refugee
2001 - 10316
2002 - 11598
2003 - 7483
2004 to end April - 1466

Total No. of applications for a declaration as a refugee
2001 - 10325
2002 - 11634
2003 - 7900
2004 to end April - 1633


If this is false please post details. I understand that you have a special relationship with the justice dept.

Secondly, Arcade points out here that

These figures are for the period BEFORE the Chen judgement. Your figures for asylum-applications only cover the period up to April. According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

Can we have some details of this "significant surge" I don't seem to see it reported in the press or the justice dept. Maybe you can enlighten me...

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Quoting your points then putting my opinion under them doesn't work then?

Quoting my points and giving relevant opinions would work.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
As I'vs said several times being born here is enough for me.

Yes, but this is just an assertion. It doesn't explain why we should extend citizenship to be used as a device. For example, a relevant opinion here would be 'establishing communities of paper citizens abroad will enhance our chances of winning the Eurovision'. That might not be a compelling or realistic reason, but it would at least address the point.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Currently an American with an Irish grandparent who couldn't find Ireland on a map can get citizenship and access to Europe without setting foot in the gaff.
Why's no-one complaining about that? oh yeah they'd probably be white wouldn't they!!!!!

A core value of Irish citizenship has been acknowledgement of our emigrant communities abroad. Its not so much that they're white, its that they are of Irish extraction. Similarly (but not identically) most Irish people can claim UK passports if they want them because of our shared past. That said, the citizenship rights of emigrants' children are not guarenteed by the constitution - the Oireachtas can remove them if they see fit.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
I think we have a duty of care to all children on this island, we should also treaty them all equaly. Anything less is unacceptable.

True, but the point is about children who are not on this island, or only here briefly to obtain citizenship as a device.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
How do you know that the current wording is only intended for Northern Irish people wanting Irish Citizenship?

Because I looked up the Dail debates on the relevant citizenship Act (1956?), which is what the wording essentially protects, and posted up relevant extracts in a previous thread a few weeks ago. The stated reasons for basing residency on birth in Ireland were Northern Ireland and people who had emigrated before the state was established. As to the GFA, as I recall there is some document (British-Irish Agreement?) that makes this clear. But, to be honest, I think people accept that when we voted on the GFA it was simply about supporting whatever structures brought peace. In that context the quid pro quo for removing the terretorial claim on the six counties was underwriting their citizenship rights.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
This Device term you use that people will come here to secure residency rights in other EU countries.
Firstly as you know only people who can support themselves without becoming a burden on any member state could hypotheticaly speeking since it hasn't been decided yet could do this.
Secondly, no European government has asked Ireland to change its laws.
Thirdly, no European government has ever complained about those who have never been to Ireland and have no intention of even visiting Ireland but have one Irish grandparent and want to travel or reside or work in some other EU state.
Fourthly, if any EU state chooses to address this matter it can do so at the appropriate level - EU Community Law.

I have addressed this point before, and pointed out that the fact the UK opposed the Chen case all the way to Europe might be an indication that they aren't exactly nuts about the idea. But the main problem with your approach is that you seem to implicitly say that if other governments did complain we should change our laws (why else would you feel their views have any relevance). As I have said we should feel empowered enough to make this decision for ourselves. If extending citizenship makes no sense in certain situations, then we should stop doing it.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
So I say again why should we change our traditional approach to citizenship?

We'll probably just open a gap in language between ourselves when I answer that I don't see any substantive change in our traditional approach to citizenship. I would then ask again why we should allow citizenship to be extended as a device. I have seen no 'no' voter address this point (although I have seen one 'no' voter suggest that we should keep the existing provision in the constitution but place immigration controls on pregnant women. That seems downright weird to me.)

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe, I accetp that asylum-applications WERE falling during the period prior to the Chen case. This is because of last year's Supreme Court judgement that the asylum-seekers parents could be deported.

But the Chen judgement has overturned this, so the numbers are going to surge again.

We must vote "Yes" so that the so-called asylum-seekers babies aren't Irish citizens.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
However, suppose the ECJ, in it's final ruling, strikes out this single aspect of the preliminary ruling, thererby letting ANYONE who is the parent of EU citizens to be undeportable?

Wooohooohaaaahheeeeehhhoooooohhahhaahhahahahahaaaaaaaaa.

After over a week of incessant posts where you dismissed allegations of scaremongering because it wasn't a final ruling, you've now had to admit that your interpretation of what was the ruling doesn't cause enough fear....and what do we get??

Scaaaaaarrrryyyy......the Chen judgement isn't binding and may end up saying something completely different. Oh and that something completely different could be really scary because we don't know what it could be.

The only way to be safe is to vote "Yes".

So, let me get this straight.

You've given up arguing the GFA "surge" because the numbers show it to be complete bollox.
You've given up arguing the Chen case "surge" because you can't even show a link to the alleged comment you heard from a minister on it.
You've given up arguing the Chen case actually impacts anything, or that any ruling actually puts us in trouble in terms of our own "you parents can't stay" stance, and what do you resort to???

"We'd better change our laws in case we're forced into taking a different stance by some future judgement because then we'll really have a problem".

The fact that this scaremongering advice is coming from someone who has abandoned arguing over the existence of so many problems because the evidence quite simply doesn't support said allegations.....well, that only makes it clear that the problem is really worth being worried about.

You've been tilting at windmills for so long now, arcade, that your newest line of argument reads to me like "but the EU's evil magic could turn this windmill into a giant when we're not looking, so we have to knock down this windmill now, in case it becomes a threat later.

It is - as you say - the only way to be sure....

(Although I always thought that the only way to be sure was "dust off and nuke the site from orbit").

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey my point on the ECJ is fair because 90% of the time the ECJ agrees with such a ruling but when it makes changes, often they are minor, but can still have a major impact on a member state/member states.

I am adamantly opposed people from outside the EU getting their hands on EU passports just by bringing their pregnant girlfriends over. Think of how this could be used by organised crime?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Think of how this could be used by organised crime?

Do you seriously think "organised crime" do not get the passports by easier means?
What percentage of stolen passports being sold on/used by criminals originated from people who were given citizenship at birth?
Or like every other post you can't respond to will you just ignore? I'm still waiting to know how you feel about your foreign friends and the Filipino nurses getting free houses and cars.

MadsL

According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

So are you also admitting that you completely fabricated this little gem? That you lied about the numbers abd McDowell's statement.

so-called asylum-seekers

The what now? Either they seek asylum, are non-nationals, or are alien invaders from mars??? Which is it?

Lets have a little consistancy on who the 'enemy' are please.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey my point on the ECJ is fair because 90% of the time the ECJ agrees with such a ruling but when it makes changes, often they are minor, but can still have a major impact on a member state/member states.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I believe I pointed it out to you previously when you were attempting to protray the Chen ruling as both something already finalised, and something which didn't have a "self-sufficient people only" clause in it.

Think of how this could be used by organised crime?

More scare-mongering.

"There isn't a proveable problem, but just think that there might be one".

Again, I will put to you that all of this only adds weight to the allegation that the current proposal is an incompletely-researched, and therefore incompletely-thought-out change to the system which is being proposed as the solution - which it may or may not be - to a wide variety of problems - which may or may not exist.

Considering that - until you abandoned it due to the whole "figures show my claims are flat-out wrong" thing - you were vehemently arguing that the GFA was a cause of the problem because we didn't stop and think it through fully, I find it laughable that you're now saying :

1) Forget about more thinking because,
2) Despite polls (someone linked them previously) showing otherwise, the people really want this referendum now, because
3) Despite the GFA change leading to this unforseen loophole, we've been looking for it to be fixed for the 6 years its been in place because
4) there might be some ways it could be exploited that I can't prove are a problem but which could become one.

Serriously dude.....there comes a time when you have to reliase how much the sands under your feet are shifting, especially compared to those who offer the opposing view. You've jumped around issues like the Michael Flatley of this forum, hopping from issue to issue as you realise that the same stock answers cut each and every one of them down, one after another.

Allegations which the figures contradict. Allegations which rely on unproveable assumptions. Allegations which are based on "what if" scenarios...this is what you have offered as reasons why the vote should be yes.

I know you believe it should be yes...but are you even questioning the arguments you put forward here after they've been shot down? Have you even considered the possibility that if the arguments which led to the conclusion are so clearly shaky....maybe the conclusion is as well?

jc

<edited to finish a sentence!>

arcadegame2004

Bonkey the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival in 2003 is proof enough for most people that our citizenship-laws are being abused. It is nonsensical to argue that it is purely for cultural reasons that people who have traveled through 6 or 7 other EU states "happen" to be pregnant on arrival here.

Also, you say that most people polled don't want this referendum. Why then do 54% say they will vote for it in the Irish Times and The Sunday Business Post Red C poll. Also, why do all the regional European constituency polls show majorities in favour of a "Yes" vote, including 62% in Leinster?

62% said in the Red C poll that they felt (62%) that there should be more time for debate. That is NOT the same as saying they didn't want the referendum, whatever the bleeding-hearts may say.

MadsL

Answer the question. Did you lie about McDowell's statement?

arcadegame2004

I didn't lie. I read in the Irish Sun that Michael McDowell has said there had been a significant surge in non-national births in the last month.

MadsL

Facts:
Nigeria 39.22 births/1,000 population compared to 14 odd/thousand in Ireland.

cultural reasons indeed...

MadsL

I didn't lie. I read in the Irish Sun that Michael McDowell has said there had been a significant surge in non-national births in the last month

Irish Sun....well, I give up. If the Irish Sun says it is true then it must be...

No chance it might have been quoted in a newspaper is there :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival in 2003 is proof enough for most people that our citizenship-laws are being abused.

Yes, and a couple of days ago, the Chen judgement was being billed as you as "proof enough" that teh EU wanted us to have to grant residency to parents.
Before that, nothing but your say-so, contradicted by the official figures - was "proof enough" that the GFA Amendment caused a surge in asylum seekers
Before that, nothing but your say-so, contraducted by a poll you never even tried to debunk - was "proof enough" that the public desperately want this referendum.

When you set your standards of proof that low, "Proof enough" doesn't really say much.

And what you're basically saying now is that the reason that people will support this is because they don't want to base their arguments on fact, but rather on their unproven perception of what is happening, and they should neither seek to be better informed, nor bother wanting to have any assurances that their beliefs have - in actual fact - any bearing on reality.

It is nonsensical to argue that it is purely for cultural reasons that people who have traveled through 6 or 7 other EU states "happen" to be pregnant on arrival here.

So you think its entirely nonsensical that asylum seekers tend to consist of a few large "sub-groups", whereby we see large numbers of a few nationalities, rather than smaller numbers of more nationalities?

Its entirely nonsensical that asylum seekers would tend to go where their family members before them went, or to countries that speak a language they understand?

You think its entirely nonsensical to argue that they could - as Victor has provided arguments for that you're apparently ignoring - be medical facility shopping rather than citizenship shopping? (In which case, incidentally, your beloved referendum will do absolutely Jack Sh1t to change the motivation that brings these people here).

Yeah...thats all completely nonsensical :rolleyes:

Also, you say that most people polled don't want this referendum. Why then do 54% say they will vote for it in the Irish Times and The Sunday Business Post Red C poll.

I marvel at your inability to distinguish between "I don't want this" and "if I can't avoid this, this is how I will vote".

By your logic, the second Nice referendum was actuallly wanted by the people, because they supported it. This is important. Remember this a few paragraphs down. You say that support for a referendum means it is right to hold it.

62% said in the Red C poll that they felt (62%) that there should be more time for debate.

Thank you. You've admitted the fact. Now all we need to do is look at your "interpretation" of what that means.

That is NOT the same as saying they didn't want the referendum, whatever the bleeding-hearts may say.

Well done. Get in the old insult at those who disagree with you while you're at it.

Unfortunately, its not a sufficiently serious one to detract me from pointing out that you're wrong in your interpretation.

It means that over 60% fo those polled felt that it would be more correct to hold back the referendum until such times as it was properly discussed.

It means that over 60% are already lining up to say that, just like the Nice referendum, the result of the first one may not really be the "right" result because people didn't know the full issues, and we'd better have a second vote.

And your logic argues that they will be right to do so.

Not only that, but I am absolutely staggered that you can not understand that someone saying "I think this referendum should be delayed, but if it won't be I will vote this way" is not saying that the referendum should be delayed. Because thats what the figures show - a majority feel the referendum should not be held just yet.....

Now...if you delay this 6 months it will not be the same referendum. One will have been cancelled, and another created in its place.

So, by your own figures, over 60% of the population do not want this referendum to occur. They would prefer the issue be further debated, that people get more informed, and then the issue be decided by referendum - which obviously includes the possibility that the options will also be changed.

But apparently thats the "bleeding heart" interpretation. The "logical" one is - no doubt - that despite 60% saying they think there should be more debate, etc. this doesn't mean in any way that they want more debate etc.

Of course. "more debate" might make more people realise how empty the "proof enough" they have put their faith in is, and that would never suit your case....so its no wonder you don't want to wait.

Vote now while you're still swayed by scaremongering! Don't wait till you have time to learn the real facts!!!! What a brilliant platform.

jc

MadsL

recent Sun headlines include;

'We'll Gas Bertie'
A sinister anarchist group last night threatened to massacre 10,000 people including Bertie Ahern and 24 EU Prime Minister in gas attacks on May Day.

"See You In May, Thousands Of Travellers Are On Their Way."
The Irish Sun went on to argue that 50,000 people could come here after EU enlargement.

The fact you believe what you read in this rag beggars my belief.

arcadegame2004

Well the Sun said the part about EU enlargement before the Governm,ent brought in social-welfare restrictions to deter welfare-tourists. Maybe had there been no such restrictions it would have happened.

AngelofFire

the biggest flaw with this refurendrum is that it introduces a contradiction into the constitution. the human rights organisation which was set up by the government is calling for a no vote. Experienced Professionals in dealing with refugees such as the refugee association and the association of Gps are also calling for a no vote. so who do people trust more the experts are some political partisan like Michael McDowell.

MadsL

Head > wall. Rinse repeat.

Why am i bothering......

You are actually *cough* defending the Irish Sun sad...

MadsL

Well said, Angel. We have some serious constitutional issues with the Amendment regarding human rights that apply only to citizens.

Read the report Arcade, not as entertaining as the Sun, but informative and well researched. Unlike McDowell's half assed attempt to confuse the issue.

bobbyjoe

ishmael whale “extend citizenship to be used as a device”

We are not extending anything we are restricting. Nothing is being added to the Constitution but rights are being taken away from the most vulnerable section of society.

ishmael whale“True, but the point is about children who are not on this island, or only here briefly to obtain citizenship as a device. “

Could you please post some evidence of this happening? (not what a bloke down the pub said). I’ve already listed why this is not a problem and backed it up with facts.

ishmael whale “you seem to implicitly say that if other governments did complain we should change our laws”

I’ve explicitly said the exact opposite several times. That point was used as a reason to vote yes which I’ve argued against from the start.

ishmael whale“I don't see any substantive change in our traditional approach to citizenship”

These are the current methods of obtaining Irish Citizenship

Under existing law you may be a citizen of Ireland if
• you were born in the island of Ireland (citizenship by birth)
• you were not born in the island of Ireland but you are the child of an Irish citizen or of a person who is/was entitled to be an Irish citizen (citizenship by descent)
• you married an Irish citizen and you meet other requirements in legislation to become a citizen by marriage or naturalisation (marriage to an Irish citizen)
• you are a citizen by naturalisation - this means you have opted to become an Irish citizen, you have met the legal requirements to do so and you have been granted citizenship (citizenship by naturalisation).

I agree with all of them it is the fairest system.
So we want to get rid of the first one. I'd call that a substantive change.
Which of these methods makes you most Irish?
I say being born on the island makes you Irish.

“Arccadegame.
Bonkey the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival in 2003”

That number has been shot down so many times I think your taking the piss!!!
Arcadegame reads the Sun explains a lot.

*edited formating

Fr0g

Originally posted by Tuars
Whatever feelings anybody has about the Citizenship referendum I think we can agree that it only addresses a tiny and probably very insignificant fraction of immigration policy.

Yes, and stirs the greatest amount of debate. But if we vote no, what then? we will be no nearer to a solution to the whole citizenship/immigration debacle. The gov. can't keep playing the race card eventually they will have to do something about it, maybe this will put the ball back in their court.

Also, I'm a bit concerned that the government can cut spending and close maternity hospitals and then blame asylum-seekers for the pressure they put on the system.

When they are finished with asylum seekers they will find something else to blame for our pathetic health system