How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

MrPudding

To be honest it is alittle bit late and I am a little bit drunk so I will keep this short.

Using a system that Arcadegame2004 fully endorses I hereby declare him a racist. There is no arguement he can put against this as I am simply using his own statistical methods. If they are good enough for him to call "the majority of asylum seekers" sw leaches I believe they are good enough to call him a racist.

I brought this very point up in a previous thread and he was unable to dispute the point so I therefore believe it is OK to call him a racist.

MrP

arcadegame2004

" I am a little bit drunk .". (MrPudding)

As far as I am concerned that is testament to the rationality, or lack of it, of your argument. I have provided statistic evidence to back up my arguments, MrPudding. You. on the other hand, prefer namecalling, especially the "R" word. I am not a racist. If I was, I would not only be categorising asylum-seekers as largely consisting of benefit-tourists, but rather I would be applying this accusation to all those of a particular race in this country who have entered Ireland legally, i.e. by work-permits. I am NOT doing that and as such I am not a racist.

I am simply point out that we have to ensure the law is upheld, including international-law. That is why the Citizenship referendum is needed. Other countries are turning a blind eye to their obligations under the Dublin Convention so the question is do we turn a blind eye too to this and in the process waste tens of millions that could be better spend on our own poor and overstretched Health-Service?

If someone is coming here legally then fair play to them. But just as we should not tolerate illegal activity among our own citizens, neither should we reward those non-nationals who break the law. I believe the current system does reward such people. Asylum-seekers are not allowed to work while their applications are being assessed. Given that they did not arrive in Ireland prior to another EU state, it is virtually impossible, from a factual point of view, that they could be legal migrants. For this reason, they should be returned to their first EU state of entry, which should then assess their asylum-claims. I do not see how this puts anyone in any danger.

It is the people-traffickers who are putting these people in danger, as the recent series "Proof" on RTE illustrated. While the series was fiction, the part of it relating to the trafficking of women who are then forced into prostitution, closely resembles reality.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I can think of far more worthwhile causes for this sum to be spent on.

Right, that figure is money that was spent on people waiting to have their application heard.
So, you're saying we should spend no money at all on these people?
What about the people whose claims are legitimate? What are we supposed to do with them? Or maybe we should just turn them all away, just in case they're not legit?
Voting yes in this referendum will not stop people trying to claim asylum here.
The people whose claims are legitimate have been persecuted (in many cases) enough as it is in their home countries, without coming to places like here and been persecuted further by armchair fascists.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Right, that figure is money that was spent on people waiting to have their application heard.
So, you're saying we should spend no money at all on these people?
What about the people whose claims are legitimate? What are we supposed to do with them? Or maybe we should just turn them all away, just in case they're not legit?

I'm not sure if that is what he is trying to say.
But I think we should make it very clear that If Ireland is the asylum seekers port of call and if the asylum seeker has passed through other E.U countries to get here, then their application in Ireland is transferred to the first port of call in the E.U.
In other words,if they have already arrived to the safety of another E.U country, then their application to stay here should be disqualified.
Thats because it suggests they have moved to the furthest outpost of the E.U for ecomomic reasons and that landing in the "freedom of the E.U" was only secondary to them.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
But it stands to reason that such gangs will exploit such loopholes as ours to get a foothold in what Al-Qaeda considers the "Infidel" West.

Jeez do you work for a tabloid rag or something? Not content with posting some dubious "facts" (as shown by previous posters) you're now trying to imply that if we don't put a stop to any foreigners entering the country, we're gonna get blown up by some mad Arabs.
:rolleyes:

SantaHoe

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Asylum-seekers are not allowed to work while their applications are being assessed. Given that they did not arrive in Ireland prior to another EU state, it is virtually impossible, from a factual point of view, that they could be legal migrants.

If this is the case, why do we as a country entertain asylum requests at all?

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
you're now trying to imply that if we don't put a stop to any foreigners entering the country, we're gonna get blown up by some mad Arabs.

Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.
Some people are missing the point in their overt efforts to be "PC".
Give it a rest.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by SantaHoe
Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.
Some people are missing the point in their overt efforts to be "PC".
Give it a rest.

Maybe because some of his posts are racist?

I was objecting to his hysterical al-Qaeda threat as part of this debate. The Sept. 11th hijackers were all legally in the United States. Better stop the legal ones too I guess.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by SantaHoe
Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.

I'm not trying to be "overly PC", but he does seem to have a problem with non nationals coming in.
From the tone of his posts, anyone who comes here claiming asylum are ripping off the country etc. etc.

zooz

I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

To quote the inpterpol (http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/Women/Default.asp) "Trafficking in women is a criminal phenomenon that violates basic human rights, and totally destroying victims' lives. Countries are affected in various ways. Some see their young women being lured to leave their home country and ending up in the sex industry abroad. Other countries act mainly as transit countries, while several other receive foreign women who become victims of sexual exploitation. "

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by zooz
I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

That doens't really have anything to do with the amendment to the constitution. Your example refers to people trafficking and illegal immigration which would be largely unaffected by the referendum result.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by zooz
I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

Can you (I know this is a long shot) explain how exactly voting yes will end trafficing of women?

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
Your example refers to people trafficking and illegal immigration which would be largely unaffected by the referendum result.

Of course it would be affected by the referendum result, if it was a yes.
A yes would copperfasten the denial of citizenship automatically to the children of those who get pregnant while here or who arrive here pregnant.
It would mean that, in those cases their residential status here would have to be determined by the value of their asylum claim and that alone .
It would remove the easy option of E.U citizenship creation for their families.
That new factor would surely impact on any decision to choose Ireland.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
It would mean that, in those cases their residential status here would have to be determined by the value of their asylum claim and that alone .

As it stands having the child here doesn't help with the asylum claim anyway. So how can voting yes stop the trafficing of women?

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
As it stands having the child here doesn't help with the asylum claim anyway. So how can voting yes stop the trafficing of women?

But you will agree that as it stands the children born here of asylum seekers get citizenship here, before the merit of their parents asylum application has been resolved.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
But you will agree that as it stands the children born here of asylum seekers get citizenship here, before the merit of their parents asylum application has been resolved.

Yes, it's a fact that it happens.
Anyone who is born here gets citzenship, regardless of their parents merits.
I just fail to see how it's going to cut down on bogus asylum claims/trafficing of women/international terrorism if people vote yes next month.

zooz

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Can you (I know this is a long shot) explain how exactly voting yes will end trafficing of women?

Yes, the EU is seen as a land of opportunity to many people from the developing world and a garuntee of citizenship to one these countries which also allows them to go to any other is huge incentive, therefore they will pay a lot of money to come here but the unfortuante thing is that the people offering these "travel services" are gangsters and are involved with other "services" such as prostitution and are therefore more concerned with putting these women in debt so that they can be exploited even more.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by zooz
Yes, the EU is seen as a land of opportunity to many people from the developing world and a garuntee of citizenship to one these countries which also allows them to go to any other is huge incentive, therefore they will pay a lot of money to come here but the unfortuante thing is that the people offering these "travel services" are gangsters and are involved with other "services" such as prostitution and are therefore more concerned with putting these women in debt so that they can be exploited even more.

but how will voting yes put an end to it????

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
but how will voting yes put an end to it????

I did say it'd be a long shot

zooz

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
but how will voting yes put an end to it????

by removing the gauarntee of citizenship will remove incentive for gangsters to target women with offers of the "good life" and therefore reduce the amount of women being exploited at the hands of the heartless bastards.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Yes, it's a fact that it happens.
Anyone who is born here gets citzenship, regardless of their parents merits.
I just fail to see how it's going to cut down on bogus asylum claims/trafficing of women/international terrorism if people vote yes next month.

It removes from their psyche the definite knowledge that the bonus prize from coming here is that any child they have here will be an Irish citizen.
The current situation means that there is a least case scenario.
This one constitutional change is not going to stem the tide a whole lot, but it would mean that there would be a certain singular definition of what would be possible for any asylum seeker who comes here and no bonus prize or second best prize if the application fails.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by zooz
by removing the gauarntee of citizenship will remove incentive for gangsters to target women with offers of the "good life" and therefore reduce the amount of women being exploited at the hands of the heartless bastards.

So you're trying to say the only people that come here are pregnant women?

Originally posted by Earthman
The current situation means that there is a least case scenario.

I would have though the possiblity of them being granted asylum was a "least case" scenario for potential asylum seekers, so do you suggest we stop granting people asylum to stop others coming here "just in case they grant it"?
How is having a child here and it becoming a citizen going to be a bonus prize if their application is rejected and they get deported?

Originally posted by Frank Grimes

How is having a child here and it becoming a citizen going to be a bonus prize if their application is rejected and they get deported?

More correctly a second prize

I would have though the possiblity of them being granted asylum was an "at least" scenario for potential asylum seekers,

I am at all times referring to those who come here as bogus asylum seekers.
Genuine asylum seekers remain unaffected by a yes vote as both the genuine and the ungenuine go through the same application process after a yes vote.
Passing through several E.U countries to get to here as a final destination undoubtedly does some harm to anyones assertion that they come specificall to claim the asylum here in Ireland.
The onus should be on the asylum seeker to prove that they came to Ireland first,why would they not have any evidence of this?
If they got off a direct flight from a non E.U country, then we were their first port of call.
But if they came off a boat from France , we weren't, it's simple enough to work that out.
The methods of getting here without going through another E.U country are few and far between.
They could come by merchant ship of course and if that hadn't stopped in another E.U country for a time then, they should have no reason to avoid presenting themselves for asylum when the ship first docks in Ireland.
What would they have to hide otherwise only the evidence that they may have passed through another E.U country first...

so do you suggest we stop granting people asylum to stop them coming here "just in case they grant it"?

Re-read my posts then...
Never suggested that at all, tiz you that seems to want me to be suggesting that, as what I am saying is a perfectly valid argument in my view for a yes vote.
All asylum seekers would still be subject to the same rigourous procedure to evaluate their claim as before, nothing in that respect would have changed.

BuffyBot

As it stands having the child here doesn't help with the asylum claim anyway

Do you think the people coming here know that?

arcadegame2004

"The people whose claims are legitimate have been persecuted (in many cases) enough as it is in their home countries, without coming to places like here and been persecuted further by armchair fascists." (Frank Grimes)

Frank, VERY few asylum-seekers fall into the category of those fleeing persecution. But even if some do, they have already reached safety at the first EU port of call. WHICH ISN'T IRELAND. We should not encourage the reckless of them endangering their unborn child by going on long journeys across 6 or 7 EU countries.

Some here try to delink the asylum-issue from the issue of citizenship and from this referendum. It is misleading to try to do so. There is obviously a link because if the child is certain to get citizenship, then inevitably, this will increase institutional sympathy for the woman's claim for asylum in the asylum-applications-appeal boards and the Courts (always handy for obstructing deportations). 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 last year arrived pregnant in the Irish state. Why? It is clear that they are doing it to get citizenship for their baby and an EU passport. And Nigerian crimelords love EU passports. 1,893 pregnant women claimed asylum in Ireland last year. If you want to read my source for this claim then go to the "Immigration Referendum" thread earlier on and click on the link placed by "ai_ing" on page 2 then scroll down to the heading "Figures for numbers of pregnant asylum seekers".

I hope and believe that this referendum will pass, though the margin may not be as high as I would have preferred. I urge Irish people to resist the arguments of the bleeding-hearts who try to draw a parallel between Irish migration to the US during the famine and migration to Ireland now. For one thing Romania and Nigeria are not experiencing a famine. These 2 countrys constitute the vast majority of asylum-claims. It is worth remembering that prior to the Irish Famine, there was never the explosion of Irish emigration to other countries that came then and afterwards. So Irish migrants from that era are not comparable to asylum-seekers or today coming to Ireland.

These people should stay in the first EU country they enter and nothing will persuade me that their lives are in danger unless they get to Ireland. We do not yet have Star-Trek-style technology that would allow such people to be beamed into Ireland. They crossed umpteen EU countries to get here, and to do so and then claim asylum constitutes deception as far as I am concerned. Deception at the taxpayers' considerable expense.

arcadegame2004

Some posters here are again implying that I am racist. I again deny this. I have said umpteen times that I abhore racism and that I do not oppose measured legal migration. I am opposed however to allowing large numbers of people to come here and - just by saying "I am claiming asylum" - getting handed a free house and years of social welfare payments because of the years it takes to decide their claims. Whose interests does it serve to have a situation like this? What benefit does it being to this country I ask you?

sixtysix

what is the precise wording of the referendum?

sceptre

As far as I know the referendum will change Article 9 to the following. I've put the new part/changed part in bold text:

ARTICLE 9
1 1º On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person
who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the
coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be an
Irish citizen.
2º The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and
citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.
3º No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and
citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.
2 1º Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution,
a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its
islands and its seas, who does not have, at the time of his or her
birth, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be
an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality,
unless otherwise provided for by law.
2º This section shall not apply to persons born before the date
of the enactment of this section.
3 Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental
political duties of all citizens.

Effectively it acts as a castrator for Article 2. I can forsee some problems with the Implementing Bill and the GFA but I might bring that up in a few days.

arcadegame2004

"a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its
islands and its seas, who does not have, at the time of his or her
birth, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be
an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality,
unless otherwise provided for by law.: (part of the new Article 9)

So in other words, you must have at least one parent born on the island of Ireland to be automatically born into Irish citizenship. Thus, NI Nationalists will continue to have Irish citizenship, as they have at least one parent born on this island. The people who in future will not be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship are children born here with NO parent born on this island.

The changes in Articles 2 and 3 were intended to confer citizenship on NI Nationalists, not the children of asylum-seekers seeking to strengthen their own claims to asylum.

I suspect the SDLP's criticisms of these changes owe more to their own leftwing ethos as a fellow socialist party as Labour, than to anything else.

sixtysix

thanks for that, i had struggled to find it.

sixtysix

daniel o'connell used to say that there were 8 million living in the island of ireland and 14 million living in the uk.
assuming that one million died in the famine how come the population of the uk is now 50 million and the island of ireland is only over 5 million.
its obvious that a significant number of irish went to live in the uk, where despite what we say about the brits, they got a reasonable reception.
are the brits in fact irish?
and does it matter anyway?
the reason why illegal immigrants do not work here is because the law prevents it.
they would prefer to work, we need them them and your pension probably depends on them.