How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Rev Hellfire

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.

Who are these vulnerable sections of society? Illegal Economic Migrants?
We owe them nothing, anyone who would travel the length of Europe to arrive here illegally is only doing it for one reason, to scam their way, quite simply they deserved to be sent packing as quickly as they come. A true refugee would have claimed asylum a lot earlier in their journey.
Anyway having Irish citizen should require more than just been born here, but involve both an emotional and cultural connection to the country.

I one am looking for the introduction of sensible limits been imposed, and the mjority I suspect is with me.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by 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.

I disagree. By contradiction I assume you mean "part of the Irish nation" and not being a citizen. However, the text "Nothwithstanding" in the new Article 9 means that the former cannot be interpreted as meaning "citizen". Otherwise you wouldn't be opposing this amendment. And why do you call the asylum-seekers "refugees"? How can people from safe countries like Romania, Ukraine, Moldova etc. be refugees?

On the "experienced professionals", I have quoted Dr.Paul Byrne of the Rotunda Hospital. Also, I have quoted the Masters of the Rotunda themselves who have tried to play down their private warnings to Michael McDowell, in my opinion because they feared being called "racist", which, given the criticism by Bonkey or Bobbyjoe of Paul Byrne, seem to bear this fear out. However the minutes do not lie. Jim Cusack's report in the Sunday Independent clearly show that the Masters did warn Michael Martin - literally- that a 4th Maternity Hospital would have to be built to cope with non-national births if the situation was not addressed, and the minutes of the meeting with Michael McDowell clearly shows the Masters called for a change in the law.

Are lawyers amongst others you term "experienced professionals"? Of course many of them will oppose this referendum, given how profitable the asylum legal cases have been for them.

"Political partisan" is the term you use to refer to Michael McDowell. However, as we do not have the Swiss system of direct-democracy, the only people who have the power to call a referendum are political partisans, which I accept McDowell is. Albeit of a very fine political party which helped drag this country out of being dominated by failed socialist policies. No scandals have ever implicated the PD's. As such I consider them has having more credibility than most of the other political parties that have ruled over us.

Oh and Bonkey, I have given you the link repeatedly of where to find the Dept. of Justice document explaining that 58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year. That you continue to debunk it is more testament to your opposition to this referendum amendment than it is to the fairness of your criticism.

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

Oh and Bonkey, I have given you the link repeatedly of where to find the Dept. of Justice document explaining that 58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year. That you continue to debunk it is more testament to your opposition to this referendum amendment than it is to the fairness of your criticism.

I didn't see that link. Post it again so I can have a read.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
in my opinion because they feared being called "racist", which, given the criticism by Bonkey or Bobbyjoe of Paul Byrne, seem to bear this fear out.

I'm getting fed up of this.

Show me where I said anything of the sort, or retract that claim.

I posted an explanation of bobbyjoe's comment which explained specifically why he was not implying that those who support the motion were racist.

I'm getting fed up of your continued presentation of the same points, again and again and again, ignoring the criticisms each time, but there's nothing I can do about that except continue to point out the same logical and factual fallacies your are espousing each time you re-iterate yourself. Having said that, however, I will not let you start slandering me and implying that I have been spouting such hate filled crap that you are alleging I have done above.

Now back it up or retract it.

However the minutes do not lie. Jim Cusack's report in the Sunday Independent clearly show that the Masters did warn Michael Martin - literally- that a 4th Maternity Hospital would have to be built to cope with non-national births if the situation was not addressed, and the minutes of the meeting with Michael McDowell clearly shows the Masters called for a change in the law.

Are lawyers amongst others you term "experienced professionals"? Of course many of them will oppose this referendum, given how profitable the asylum legal cases have been for them.

The doctors said that something needed to be done. The Human Rights experts have said this is not the right something you should be doing. That doesn't mean that nothing means doing, no more than it means that the doctors expert opinion that there is a problem which needs resolving is incorrect.

Yet again you seem to be unable to make the dsistinction between a change and a good solution.

Oh and Bonkey, I have given you the link repeatedly of where to find the Dept. of Justice document explaining that 58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year.

Sigh.

Where have I questioned the accuracy of this figure? I have repeatedly questioneded the conclusions you draw from this figure, pointing out how much other information you need, and lack, (and have previously - I dimly recall...its possible it was someone else- said you couldn't be bothered determining if it even exists) to be able to draw the conclusions you claim are "clear".

That you continue to debunk it is more testament to your opposition to this referendum amendment than it is to the fairness of your criticism.

I haven't once debunked that figure that I recall. I have debunked the allegation that it is a "citizenzhip shopping" exercise, and the allegation that the referendum will resolve it.

As Victor has also pointed out (and subsequently I and others), the incentive is still on these people to come here for the free medical aid which they will unquestioningly receive regardless of whether this Amendment passes, and regardless of any legislation which is dependant on this Amendment.

Again, I'm arguing that "change" and "a solution to the problem" are not intrinsically the same thing, and that this is a fact that you seem to be overlooking.

If the distinction hasn't sunk in, perhaps you should re-read Hobbes' post about his polar-bear deterring stone. If you can spot the logic-flaw in his stone theory, you should be able to see what I'm saying, and why the figure that you're quoting is absolutely irrelevant to my argument about your conclusions.

But please...continue on about "fairness of criticism" whilst you continue to insist the Chen judgement is something it isn't, that the figures clearly imply something you can't actually determine factually, and that I've implied the doctors withdrew their allegations because they were afraid people would call themn racists. It really cuts me down to size and puts me in my place.

jc

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bobbyjoe
That number has been shot down so many times I think your taking the piss!!!

Bonkey, that is where Bobbyjoe ridiculed my reference to the 58% figure as being the percentage of female asylum over the age of 16 who were pregnant on arrival in 2003. Also, let me add that I fully consider the HRC you referred to as biased because of the person who heads it beign the former FG head in the Seanad. Though FG is in favour of the proposal, there are dissidents in the party who oppose it, and even among those ostensibly in favour there are those who would still like to embarass the Government by attacking the referendum.

Hobbes, since you haven't read my source for the 58% figure, I will tell you how to get there.

Go to the previous thread entitled "Immigration Referendum". Then go to ai_ing's link I believe it is on page 3 of the debate. Then click on his link and scroll down to the heading "Figures for Numbers of Pregnant Female Asylum seekers". You will see a clear breakdown month by month, number by number, percentage by percentage, and you will see that the % is 58% and the number is 1,893.

arcadegame2004

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152567&perpage=10&highlight=Immigration%20Referendum&pagenumber=2

Hobbes, click on this link and then scroll down to ai_ing's post and click on his link. Then scroll down to the heading I mentioned and you will see clearly the evidence from the Dept. of Justice's own mouth.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, that is where Bobbyjoe ridiculed my reference to the 58% figure as being the percentage of female asylum over the age of 16 who were pregnant on arrival in 2003.

Yes, I know where Bobbyjoe did it. You said that me continuing to debunk it was evidence of my lack of fairness. I couldn't give a crap, in terms of that statement, what bobbyjoe, Bertie Ahern, or Santa Claus has said on the issue.

Look - just in case you're confused...here it is again :

Oh and Bonkey, I have given you the link repeatedly of where to find the Dept. of Justice document explaining that 58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year. That you continue to debunk it is more testament to your opposition to this referendum amendment than it is to the fairness of your criticism.

See? My name. Me you're making these comments about.

lso, let me add that I fully consider the HRC you referred to as biased

You're at it again. I haven't referred to any HRC. Or when you say "you" in a post adressing its first sentence to me, do you mean "bobbyjoe" all of a sudden????

As for your reasoning for disregarding it...well hey...if you want to argue that point as "logic" and think it makes your case stronger, you go right ahead.

jc

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
The doctors said that something needed to be done. The Human Rights experts have said this is not the right something you should be doing.

I assumed by "human rights experts" you meant the Human Rights Commission.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by MadsL
Nigeria 39.22 births/1,000 population compared to 14 odd/thousand in Ireland.

Look. The higher birthrate IN Nigeria is understandable because in poorer countries, families are encouraged to have more children so that there will be more breadwinners and because of diseases like typhoid, syhpillis etc.s that mean that mothers have more children in the hope that some will survive to maturity.

But there is clearly no logic to having so many when living in the West. Other than citizenship tourism that is. Especially when 'asylum-seekers' can't work. Nor should they work, as they would price Irish people out of work.

bobbyjoe

“58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year.
”
This is the title of the chart your talking about?
3.1 Pregnant asylum applicants
Information made available to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner indicates that over the past year the number of asylum seekers pregnant at the time of application was around 58% of the number of female asylum seekers aged 16 years and over. See figures below.
So at time of application not on arrival.
All Applications – new applications and applications from persons who had withdrawn from the asylum system and subsequently reapplied
So it includes people who reapplied.
So its not pregnant on arrival in Ireland?

“Arcadegame
“who have tried to play down their private warnings to Michael McDowell, in my opinion because they feared being called "racist", which, given the criticism by Bonkey or Bobbyjoe of Paul Byrne, seem to bear this fear out.”

Never called him racist its just that I can’t understand the conclusions drawn from the report.
Its like studying Dublin Bus, you find that there are less buses, cuts in funding and more passengers travelling.
Then you find that .166% of passengers are students.
Then you conclude that it’s the students fault you need more buses!

“Rev Hellfire
Who are these vulnerable sections of society? Illegal Economic Migrants?”

Newborn babies.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bobbyjoe
Newborn babies.

Why are they choosing to have them here? It is about getting citizenship.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
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?

How would this work?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Also, you say that most people polled don't want this referendum. ...... 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.

Didn't a SBP(?) poll say something like 66% thought the poll was "premature"?

Originally posted by MadsL
Answer the question. Did you lie about McDowell's statement?

"You want the truth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" - Colonel Jessup

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why are they choosing to have them here? It is about getting citizenship.

When you continue to ignore the other possibilities, sure.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Never called him racist its just that I can’t understand the conclusions drawn from the report.

McDowell isn't racist (to my knowledge), he's elitist. See here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164033

bobbyjoe

Arcadegame I made two points in my last post care to comment on them?

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe, it's more than likely that they were pregnant on arrival because they tend to claim asylum very soon after arrival in Ireland.

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bobbyjoe, it's more than likely that they were pregnant on arrival because they tend to claim asylum very soon after arrival in Ireland.

When people arrive in Ireland, if they are not here on a holiday they have to inform the INS as soon as possible or they risk getting deported. Especially if they are claiming Asylum.

It has absolutly nothing to do with pregnancy.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bobbyjoe, it's more than likely that they were pregnant on arrival because they tend to claim asylum very soon after arrival in Ireland.

Sounds very authoritive. Do you have any reliable data behind this? Statistics? Personal accounts? Sworn statements? Vaguest of links on the internet?

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Victor
Sounds very authoritive. Do you have any reliable data behind this? Statistics? Personal accounts? Sworn statements? Vaguest of links on the internet?

A rhetorical set of questions if ever there was one.

arcadegame2004 has his political debating style down pat, inflammatory rhetoric backed with no facts or sources whatsoever, accompanied by ignoring any questions or refutations put to him.

Victor

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson
A rhetorical set of questions if ever there was one.

Not actually rhetorical - I was hoping to get something out of him this time (but yes, my patience has been tried).

TacT

I will be voting no, please continue..

arcadegame2004

arcadegame2004 has his political debating style down pat, inflammatory rhetoric backed with no facts or sources whatsoever, accompanied by ignoring any questions or refutations put to him.

I have repeatedly given sources, including the Dept. of Justice document on % of pregnant asylum seekers, together with the remarks by Dr.Paul Byrne in the Irish Examiner, and the report by Jim Cusack in the Sunday Independent.

MadsL

Why are they choosing to have them here?

Just a guess, but maybe so they don't get hacked to death with machettes, stoned to death, set on fire, or other 'nice' ways to die in Nigeria at the moment.

Have you even read anything about Nigeria, arcade? I don't suggest you visit, homosexuality is punishable by up to 14 years in prison, if you don't get clubbed to death.
source

MadsL

the Dept. of Justice document on % of pregnant asylum seekers.

Shot down several times.

together with the remarks by Dr.Paul Byrne in the Irish Examiner.

Discredited. No response from Arcade on the points I made in the hospital thread.

and the report by Jim Cusack in the Sunday Independent.

Which you misquoted, and nowhere makes the points you think it does...the masters complained about Social Welfare payments structure NOT citizenship laws.

arcadegame2004

MadsL, the Masters DID warn that a fourth Maternity hospital would have to be built to cope wioth the numbers of non-nationals giving birth.

MadsL

And now these threads have completely swapped theme with each other. For the love of GOD, mods please, please, please MERGE these threads!!!

MadsL

the Masters DID warn that a fourth Maternity hospital would have to be built to cope wioth the numbers of non-nationals giving birth.

Wrong the masters warned that that a fourth Maternity hospital would have to be built to cope...if these trends continue;

Trends
1. DSFA Paying women maternity welfare at 32 weeks, enabling them to travel to Dublin to have their babies.
2. Generally high level of the Irish birth rate (highest for 15 years)
3. "If both the Department of Justice and Department of Health recognise the difficulties of retaining many thousands of women in Dublin then the Department of Social Welfare needs to ensure that welfare payments are not being made available until after the delivery of the baby and that they can only be claimed in the region where accommodation and medical services are being provided. We hope that you will be able to do something in terms of co-ordinating the Government's approach to this problem,"
4. Employed Irish women travelling to Dublin; "Ironically, the Dublin Maternity Hospitals would now appear to have become victims of their own reputation for excellence - women from all over the country, who are having routine uncomplicated deliveries, want to have their babies in Dublin, despite the fact that there are excellent services available in their own regions."

source

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
MadsL, the Masters DID warn that a fourth Maternity hospital would have to be built to cope wioth the numbers of non-nationals giving birth.

What are you worried about? According to you, the government can afford to hand out free houses and cars to all foreigners here, so building a new hospital shouldn't be too much trouble for them should it?
Maybe they'll make a couple whites only too, would that keep you happy?

arcadegame2004

Originally quoted by MadsL
Just a guess, but maybe so they don't get hacked to death with machettes, stoned to death, set on fire, or other 'nice' ways to die in Nigeria at the moment.

Then they should claim asylum in the first EU country they enter, which isnt Ireland.

TwoShedsJackson

And what would be wrong with another maternity hospital being built in Dublin? The Government should be expanding the health service, not wasting the revenue boom they got during the mid-late 90s on tax cuts, jets, helicoptering to Leitrim to open an off-licence, tribunals etc. et-bleedin'-cetera.

They know what they're doing, using this referendum to stir racist attitudes and cover the tracks of their own appalling record. Hospital beds and services are being closed left, right, and centre, and you're in a tizzy because you think some blacks are coming over here and taking advantage?

And it is only blacks, isn't it? Would you be on here fretting if it were white Americans coming here taking our precious hospital beds, or any well-educated white people. Would you hell.

Oh, and remarks by someone in a letter to the Irish Examiner is not a source, by the way. I wrote a letter to the Irish Times a few years ago about how crap RTE's output of programming was, so I guess it is now definitively crap by your standards :rolleyes: