How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

MadsL

Wrong. I have repeatedly posted evidence from Dr.Paul Byrne, and the minutes of the meetings of the Masters of the Rotunda with ministers. I have given links to Dept.of Justice documenatation about 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 beign pregnant on arrival. I have based my argument on fact.

And I have repeatedly pointed out to you that...

1. evidence from Dr.Paul Byrne

He produced only opinion on the matter contradicting evidence that was to be found in a report he conducted which showed that less than 10% of unbooked births were to non-nationals.

2. minutes of the meetings of the Masters of the Rotunda with ministers

There is only one Master of each hospital. the minutes that you refer to are the letter from three Dublin Masters which request a change in Social Welfare payments at 32 weeks. Irish and non-national women were coming to the hospitals in Dublin once they had received their welfare checks. Nowhere do they mention non-nationals in fact.

3 Dept.of Justice documenatation about 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 beign pregnant on arrival

the number of asylum seekers pregnant at the time of application a very different statistic.

I have based my argument on fact.

No. You have based your argument on misunderstandings at best, half-truths and outright lies. Yes, lies. Free house...remember that one.

arcadegame2004

You did say they should be removed some pages (or other thread ago). something along the lines of that Irish people should get priority.

Hobbes, it is patriotic for us to put our own people first. After all when SF and the Greens were calling for a "No" vote in the Nice Referendum, wasn't that basically the kernel of their argument? I say this as a "yes" voter in the Nice debate who now views as ironic those same parties preaching about "xenophobia". Why don't they look at their own xenophobia in opposing EVERYTHING that comes out of the EU?

SF talking about children's rights is a bit much considering their military-wing, the IRA's, kneecapping of innocent kids in NI.

Labour's opposition to the referendum is totally hypocritical considering the letter sent by Ruairi Quinn to Bertie Ahern during the GFA negotiations warning him that putting an automatic right to Irish citizenship based on birth in Ireland could be abused by illegal-immigrants, and calling for, in substance, what we are now about to vote on in this referendum, to be placed in our Constitution.

I HAVE NEVER said that those here LEGALLY on work-permits should be thrown out. I have said that the work-permits system has the advantage of ensuring that there is no competititon with Irish labour for jobs. Instead work-permits are issued on the basis that the relevant jobs are in sectors of the economy experiencing skills-shortages. Hence, Irish people are not losing out in issueing work-permits for that kind of job. The fact that these people only get to come here legally if their application for a work-permit is granted, ensures that the Irish labour force are protected from competititon.

Allowing asylum-seekers to work would not entail this protective affect, because those people are already in the country. They would, if allowed to work, compete with Irish labour for jobs and Irish labour would lose out as asylum-seekers would work for pittance. That is why I strongly disagree with those who argue against this referendum that we need asylum-seekers to fill labour-shortages. Filipino nurses and Brazilian factory workers are not asylum-seekers.

MadsL

That is why I strongly disagree with those who argue against this referendum that we need asylum-seekers to fill labour-shortages.

no one to my knowledge has ever argued this point.

That asylum-seekers should be allowed to work, yes. That we need them to fill labour shortages, no.


Can't you post a link ever. That Rauri Quinn letter might be a start. or did you read it in the Irish Sun.

arcadegame2004

The Ruairi Quinn leter was reported on RTE Radio 1, including Morning Ireland.

MadsL

...and where were the free houses reported?

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Hobbes, it is patriotic for us to put our own people first.

No I believe the correct term is "racist" when you say "our own people".

MadsL

And the Labour Party have clearly refuted the allegation...

STATEMENT FROM LABOUR PARTY

In a number of interventions in the Dail during the week and again on the Today With Pat Kenny Programme today, the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell TD, has totally misrepresented the position of the Labour Party and Ruairi Quinn in regard to correspondence exchanged with the Taoiseach in the run up to the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

The true position is as follows. In the same week - Easter Week of 1998 - that the Taoiseach was explaining that "that the question of Irish citizenship has, for the first time, been placed on a constitutional, rather than a statutory, footing", by virtue of the Good Friday Agreement and the changes to be made to made to Article 2, his then Minister for Justice John O'Donoghue TD, was outlining plans his Department already had to restrict entitlement to citizenship by virtue of birth in Ireland.

We wrote in order to query the ambiguity. Which was the correct position? We pointed out that -
"If controversy arises during the course of the referendum campaign as to the exact meaning of the amendment, its supporters may be forced to back-track and to revise their published interpretations as to its effect. The independent Referendum Commission may also become embroiled in controversy, with accusations that it is supporting what are not merely arguments of dubious merit but statements which are mistakes of fact and calculated to mislead."

We also said that -
"Incidentally, if our citizenship laws are restricted in the future, we will generate an odd category of children who, by virtue of being born in the State, are recognised as part of the nation but who cannot claim citizenship, due to the status of their parents at the time of their birth. It remains to be seen what significance will be attached to possession of such a semi-detached status."

The letter to the Taoiseach was part of an exchange of correspondence in the run up to the Good Friday Agreement that was intended, on our part, to remove any degree of ambiguity about the effect of the proposed change to Article 2 and to thus help copper fasten support for the Agreement.

At no time did the Labour Party ever propose a change to the Article 9 along the lines now being proposed by the government. Ruairi Quinn's concern was to ensure that no differentiation would be made between nationality and citizenship: that concern was based on a perception that the proposed Article 2 could be seen to make a difference between the two.

The need for the "belt and braces" approach suggested by Ruairi Quinn at the time was rendered unnecessary by the categorical assurances given by the Taoiseach that the new Article 2 "confers on every person born in the island of Ireland an entitlement to nationality and hence to citizenship" and by his further assurance that "we do not contemplate any change in the jus soli rule [the rule conferring citizenship by virtue of birth in Ireland]. Considerations of peace in Northern Ireland would outweigh any concerns related to immigration".

The possible change we suggested to Article 9 in 1998 would have copper-fastened the provisions of the new Article 2. Given the Taoiseach's assurances, however, it was unnecessary to pursue the issue. These are the explicit assurances on which he is now back-tracking.

The government amendment is, in effecting, over-ruling the new Article 2 which had been agreed at the multi-party talks leading up to the Belfast Agreement. This is why we object to it and why we - and the SDLP - consider it to be damaging to the Agreement.


http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4666

arcadegame2004

Well they would say that wouldn't they!:D

Damaging to the Agreement?

NI Nationalists will still have Irish citizenship because they have a parent born on this island.

I assure you that I and most others had NI Nationalists in mind when we voted for the Citizenship-provisions now in place. I had no idea that asylum-seelers would be able to come to Ireland to claim citizenship for their children.

MadsL

Arcade, you claim that we are 'hysterical' ... look at the type of statements the Govt itself is making.

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5312

---

According to Minister Martin, “It is unfortunate that a lot of the debate so far has been dominated by deliberate misrepresentations of the proposal. The facts are clear and the need for action is obvious to anyone who is willing to look at them.” The Minister said that opponents of the referendum should be honest with the public and answer a few basic questions"

· “Do they believe that it is right that people living in other countries, who have no connection whatsoever with this island, are being advised to come here to give birth solely to gain Irish citizenship for their child?

· Are they willing to stand over a situation which doctors have said is dangerous for women and children alike?

· If they believe that we will be racist for adopting this proposal, are they saying that every other country in the EU is racist?

· Do they really think it is acceptable that a loophole in our law can be exploited to get around immigration controls in twenty-four other EU states?

---

I'll answer those happily...

Does the Govt believe that it is right that people living in other countries, who have never set foot on this island, are being advised to apply on the web solely to gain Irish citizenship for the 'novelty of owning an irish passport', the fast immigration lines, and the 'free' health services. (Americans, doncha know)

Does the Govt believe that it is right that Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden, should retain his citizenship (he was SOLD an Irish passport in 1990) and that his children and grandchildren (possibly even great-grandchildren) should be allowed irish citizenship.

Are they willing to stand over a situation which doctors have said is dangerous for women and children alike?
Airlines have very clear guidelines about women flying whilst pregnant. The majority require a doctor's letter past 35 weeks specifying the expectant date of delivery. Are the Government suggesting that freedom to travel be restricted in some way for non-asylum seekers. Are they prepared to stand over the criticism from Amnesty and the ECHR?
If they believe that we will be racist for adopting this proposal, are they saying that every other country in the EU is racist?

I believe the proposal to be rascist because of it's timing. it is clearly timed to distract attention away from Govt failings of the health service. Non-nationals are made out to be at fault. As a non-national I resent the implications inherent in this proposal. The other EU states do not grant automatic citizenship to grandchildren of emigrees outside the state yet Ireland will continue to do so even after a YES vote.

Do they really think it is acceptable that a loophole in our law can be exploited to get around immigration controls in twenty-four other EU states?

No-one 'gets around' immigration controls. Particularly not a child who cannot get a passport for six years. This is not a loophole. It is a legal and now constitutional precendent. The proclaimation speaks of "cherishing all the children of the nation equally, oblivious to the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which has divided a minority from the majority in the past."
Parnell (thanks arcade for bring up dead heroes of the Republic) said "No man has a right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. To say to his country 'thus far shall thou go and no further" Does anyone else find it significant that his statue is pointing at the Rotunda?

arcadegame2004

No-one 'gets around' immigration controls. Particularly not a child who cannot get a passport for six years. This is not a loophole. It is a legal and now constitutional precendent. The proclaimation speaks of "cherishing all the children of the nation equally, oblivious to the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which has divided a minority from the majority in the past."

It's the PARENT that I feel that is abusing the system. She is endangering her unborn child by travelling long distances to get to Ireland. Foreigners travelling here to get citizenship for their babies are taking up 30% of the beds according to media reports.

I do NOT consider the baby of a random foreigner travelling here to be automatically a child of the Irish nation. Citizenship should not be debased as a souvenir to be claimed by anyone who travels here solely to gain it.

MadsL

Citizenship should not be debased as a souvenir to be claimed by anyone who travels here solely to gain it.

Americans don't even have to travel here to get it, and some regard an Irish passport as a 'novelty item'.

By the way do you accept my challenge or do you withdraw your statements about 'freehouses'?

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I do NOT consider the baby of a random foreigner travelling here to be automatically a child of the Irish nation.

Yes, anyone still reading these threads is well aware of that.

I'm not sure though...have you yet answered whether or nor you consider MadSL's born-and-bred-in-Ireland-but-to-two-non-nationals child as being a child of the Irish nation?

If not, then what nation (that he/she has never lived in) would you consider them to be of? The father's? The mother's? Anywhere else as long as its not here because then you don't care?

Citizenship should not be debased as a souvenir to be claimed by anyone who travels here solely to gain it.

Yes, but what about those who travel here for other reasons, and end up being eligible for it?

What about MadSL's next child (assuming he has one, and both parents are still non-nationals at the same time)

You're closing the door on them as well.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, MadsL is not going to be materially affected by this, nor is his child. Him and his child are EU citizens. So they continue to have the permanent right forever and a day to live here. As such I fail to see why they are being brought into this?

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Him and his child are EU citizens.

How do you know that?

Just because you have a child here does not make you an EU nor an Irish citizen.

arcadegame2004

Because he is a British citizen that's how I know he has told us this long ago.

ArthurDent

If this has been posted before - apologies

link to Amnesty International article

"We would also emphasize that if the Irish government is really serious about addressing the challenges presented by immigration, the real and positive solutions lie in reform and delivery of immigration legislation. Specifically, the government should deliver as a matter of urgency the Immigration and Residency Bill, promised since 1998 to deliver an immigration policy for the State."

Amnesty International also noted that the current and previous governments have done very little to positively address the growing issue of racism and xenophobia in Ireland.

There have been budgetary cuts to the government's own anti-racism awareness campaign by 63 per cent in 2003 and a further 76 per cent in 2004. Aspects of the government's immigration policy, such as one exists, are open to discriminatory interpretation - including the work permit system.


http://www.amnesty.ie/user/content/view/full/1930/

Food for thought....


ArthurDent

Yoda

I have just spent an inordinate amount of time reading this thread.

I came to Ireland in 1989, and applied for citizenship in 1997. It was granted in 1999.

Irish citizenship law has granted citizenship according to jus solis since 1921, based on the entire territory of the island. This was enshrined in the Constitution in 1999.

I stand behind what the Irish Council for Civil Liberties has written about the matter: the present government and its Minister for Justice etc proposes that the Irish people completely reverse the basis for Irish citizenship. Children will not be treated equally at birth, but their status will be based on who their parents are. I think that fundamental change in Irish law is unwarranted, certainly not on the basis of a couple thousand births.

I will be proud to vote NO on the referendum on the 11th of June.

arcadegame2004

Children will not be treated equally at birth, but their status will be based on who their parents are. QUOTE]

If the rest of the EU were allowing automatic citizenship from birth this issue wouldn't be such a problem for me. Unfortunately, being the only EU state that allows citizenship solely on birth grounds leaves us dangerously exposed and we need to tackle it. I will vote Yes because the resources of the HEalth-Service should not be wasted on citizenship-tourism.

ArthurDent

Just some of the reasons to vote no:

Irish Refugee Council
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/press04/pr21-5-04.html

Children's Rights Alliance
http://www.google.ie/search?q=citizenship+referendum+ireland&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=20&sa=N

National Women's Council
http://www.nwci.ie/publications.html

Methodist Church
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/3268875?view=Eircomnet

SDLP
http://www.sdlp.ie/prgallagheronsouthernreferendum.shtm


Irish Council for Civil Liberties
http://www.iccl.ie/constitution/gen/ref_flyer04.pdf


William Binchy
http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5118

MadsL

Have you no guts at all Arcade. I'm calling you out here, either prove that free houses are being given to asylum-seekers and I will give the money. Or withdraw your comments about free houses. We are waiting.

Yoda

ArcadeGame2004,

I just waded through 18 pages of your opinions. Your reasons for voting YES have been abundantly expressed.

I don't think they are particularly good reasons. You harp on costs and chant catch-phrases like "citizenship-tourism", assuming the worst of the devil foreigners trying to sneak their way into better lives for themselves and their children.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has a broader, more insightful, less fearful view. BobbyJoe challenged you to read The Referendum Proposal - Frequently Asked Questions, and I do too. In fact, I challenge you to read each sentence aloud, pausing after each one, and thinking about it.

Much of law is simple and straightforward. The nature of a republic, and of the rights it confers to its citizens, and of how it recognizes its citizens, is not. Ireland, and other countries which grant citizenship by virtue of birth, is subtle, and philosophical.

Ireland's current government and its Minister for Justice etc. are not known for their philosophical savvy. That is why they propose a "quick fix" referendum upon us, overturning completely, without noting it, the grounds for citizenship which have been given to people born on this island since the foundation of the State.

TacT

Other people will be materially affected but because they're not "your" (white) people you will vote yes and screw them over because you can't consider the real effects this will have for us as a country.

Instead you have opted to dance around with the scaremongering and other bigotted claims and waffle down the local which will in turn, cause people to vote yes due to misinformation.
You have your own ideas and opinions stated the way they are and will vote yes because you are in fact a blatant pig-headed racist who avoids any questions/confrontations which might change your beliefs and the way you vote in this upcoming referendum.

You're a disgrace and make me feel ashamed to be Irish due to your narrow minded views that are nothing more typical than a local villager living in the past who also wants to push his false beliefs unto other people.

Now where are those free houses?

arcadegame2004

No TacT I am NOT a racist. I have said this umpteen times that I am not a zero-immigration person. But you and others on the NO side are at the other extreme. You want an open-door. That too is an extreme position and I do not believe that most Irish people want that.

It would be nice if we could conduct this debate without namecalling like "racist" etc. Are the rest of Europe racist for not allowing automatic citizenship on the basis of birth? A free for all would only be exploited by terrorist and organised crime.

MrPudding

What about the houses? How long are you going to pretend you don't see the question? Where is the proof?

MrP

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No TacT I am NOT a racist. I have said this umpteen times that I am not a zero-immigration person. But you and others on the NO side are at the other extreme. You want an open-door. That too is an extreme position and I do not believe that most Irish people want that.

i have read all of this thread and i don't remember anyone on the no side saying we want an open door policy. we on the no side want a proper immigration policy that see works permits given to the person and not the employer and also the enforcement of already existing laws. you yourself said that only 5% of failed asylum seekers are deported. how is voting yes going to change this? you claim that by voting yes it will discourage people coming here trying to gain citizenship falsely, i counter that by saying that if we actually enforced our already existing laws and introduced a proper policy and enforced it, that would be enough to discourage people for coming here under false pretences

MadsL

Irish people have to come first as far as I am concerned when it comes to first refusal over a job.

We are grossly irresponsible if we continue to allow our precious resources to be wasted on any TOm, Dick or Harry who travels to Ireland and expects and gets a free house etc paid for by US.

But simply going up and down the country buying up available housing for asylum-seekers and thereby pushing house prices even further out of the reach of young people and couples seems indefensible to me.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1638881#post1638881

The free house and our citizenship laws are clearly the primary factors in this attraction.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1623289#post1623289

Being gay does not cause me to place extra costs on the Irish taxpayer. I do not get a free house.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1668812#post1668812


I consider these racist statements. I would ask the mods to decide, if Arcade does not either prove (in which case I will donate the money) or retract these statements, then he should be banned for making unfounded racist remarks.

The politic guidelines state "If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive." I am challenging AG2004 to prove that he is not deliberately intending to deceive with these statements.

TacT

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No TacT I am NOT a racist. I have said this umpteen times that I am not a zero-immigration person. But you and others on the NO side are at the other extreme. You want an open-door. That too is an extreme position and I do not believe that most Irish people want that.

It would be nice if we could conduct this debate without namecalling like "racist" etc. Are the rest of Europe racist for not allowing automatic citizenship on the basis of birth? A free for all would only be exploited by terrorist and organised crime.

No, you're putting words in my mouth now. I didn't say I wanted an open door policy as Trebor has kindly pointed out. If you're not racist why do you call people "yours" and others not? Where are these free houses anyway? Don't change the subject this time -- answer the question!

It's not a free for all -- yet more show that you don't understand the situation, it's delicacy and intricacies at play based on the outcome of the referendum. What, terrorists? Oh right, we're back to the scare mongering again are we now? You must be on full spin and have come full circle.

Sorry for the name calling but with opinions like that based on self-contrived thoughts of yours with no factual evidence to back them up I feel all my cards have been used up here because you can't answer a question and are talking pure crap.

ishmael whale

What a delight to return to the debate after a few days and find that absolutely nothing has changed and the substantive points in favour of a 'yes' still being ignored in favour of repeatedly refuting the excessive claims made by Arcadegame. For what its worth, which will be very little, I will try to set out the points I have not seen addressed by the 'no' side.

The Constitution grants citizenship to people with no real link to the place as the accidental side effect of guarenteeing citizenship of people in Northern Ireland in the context of removing the constitution claim to the terretory of Northern Ireland. We did traditionally grant citizenship to anyone born on the island. This reflected a core value that people excluded from the State by the border or who emigrated before the State was formed should be included. We know that from, for example, the Dail debates in relation to the relevant legislation.

The Chen case is a clear documented case of a woman having her child in Northern Ireland with a view to claiming UK residency on the basis of her child's EU/Irish citizenship. There needs to be a reason to grant citizenship to someone. There is no reason for us to grant Irish citizenship to people who want to use it as a device to live elsewhere in the EU. As EU citizens Irish people can move the EU. If we have any self respect we should behave responsibly and not allow this to be abused.

The maternity hospitals report cases occur often enough to put pressure on services. However, this simply indicates that this is not a theoretical issue. There have been attempts to suggest that every non-national birth is a case of 'citizenship tourism' to use the tabloid phrase. These extreme arguments are not sustainable. Could numbers be expected to increase/decrease? That's anybody's guess. But there's no particular need to wait and see. We've identified a real flaw in Irish citizenship laws. It should just be fixed.

Third generation emigrants have citizenship rights. They might also have fairly tenuous links to the country. But these rights are not guarenteed by the Constitution, and can be limited by the Oireachtas.

The 'yes' case is clear enough - there's a loophole that needs to be closed. To refute this the 'no' camp needs to explain why its a good idea to grant citizenship as a device. They have not done this, and its hard to see how they can.

Flat assertions that an unqualified place of birth criterion is the fairest system simply assume what has to be proved when faced with a concrete case of someone entering the country briefly to obtain citizenship for their child for the purpose of obtaining residency elsewhere in the EU, as in the Chen case. But, unfortunately, 'no' voters tend to concentrate on refuting the wild claims made by some 'yes' voters about the numbers and nature of people abusing the system, rather than addressing this reality.

(Cue post by Arcadegame alleging that boatloads of Nigerians land nightly on Dollymount Strand and can be heard moving through the dunes saying 'where the white women at', followed by fifteen pages of requests by 'no' voters for relevant links proving this to be the case.)

MadsL

Ismael, welcome back. I was afraid the YES side had gone into hiding, cringing everytime they read a post from our friend. Anyway, hopefully some rational debate now.

Yoda

I don't think that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties is an ignorant body. Regarding the Chen case, well, it's the child born here who has citizenship. It is reasonable to expect that legislation could be introduced to handle the "abuse" Mrs Chen is accused of.

For instance: as an Irish citizen, the child will have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU. As a minor child, however, the infant can certainly not make such a choice. Legislation could be introduced to require Mrs Chen to raise her child here if she wants to stay in the EU (since she will not automatically acquire the Irish citizenship which her child has). After 5 years residence, she will have the right to apply for Irish citizenship (and will have set down roots here). Then she can move anywhere she likes, as I can, indeed.

But the child born here is entitled to Irish citizenship according to the laws in place since the beginning. I don't believe that should change. I think it is wrong to give some children born here rights while denying it to others born here. Particularly when the children or grandchildren of people born here who weren't themselves born here are also granted citizenship.

Mrs Chen's child has Irish citizenship. That's the law, even if this referendum passes (it says so in the amendment). Oireachtas na hÉireann should legislate to protect that child's rights. It must in any case.