How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
That doesn't mean I was against EU expansion, just the way they wanted to do it.

Legally (whatever about German political squeamishness), Nice had nothing to do with 15+10 expansion.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I actually SUPPORTED Nice thank you very much Bonkey. I voted "Yes". I am amused that the same parties - on the No side - ranting on about our independence and not wanting to be taken over by foreigners now seek to let foreigners come here and take Ireland over by outnumbering us in our own country.

There were more issues to Nice than that, but there is a big difference between 300 million controlling 4 million and 200,000 **not** controlling 4 million.

Originally posted by Trebor
yes there is a possibility that the system is being abused but it is not because of the Constitution it's because the courts will not enforce the 2003 case that says the parents do not get residency rights. why must we change our Constitution when we could solve the problem with enforcement and legislation.

The courts have to enforce a decision of the Supreme Court - the problem is the government won't enforce the and/or amend it.

arcadegame2004

There were more issues to Nice than that, but there is a big difference between 300m controlling 4m and 4m controlling 200,000.

Yes but the 200,000 happened only in the last 4 years or so. At that rate there would be 2 MILLION in this country in 40 years. How the hell are you going to find the cash to pay to house/treat all those people?

This referendum is needed partly to introduce some element of planning and control so we dont end up facing liabilities we cant afford in the future.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yes but the 200,000 happened only in the last 4 years or so. At that rate there would be 2 MILLION in this country in 40 years. How the hell are you going to find the cash to pay to house/treat all those people?

Put them to work?

I'm just wondering though where do you get the "last 4 years or so" from?

arcadegame2004

I'm just wondering though where do you get the "last 4 years or so" from?

I base that on the 2002 Census which found 6% of our population was non-national. It had been just 4 years since the GFA.

I am also determined that Irish people continue to be the majority of the population of our own country. I can accept some foreigners being allowed to come in e.g. to fills vacancies caused by labour-shortages. But beyond that,. letting too many in would lead to competition for housing (already hard enough for Irish peopel to get) and jobs, which could only fuel racial tensions leading to the rise of the Far-Right. Look at the experience of Denmark, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria. I don't want that to happen in this country.

gubugirl

The rise of the Far Right?
No need for the far right to rise when they've friends like you chomping at the bit arcadegame...

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yes but the 200,000 happened only in the last 4 years or so.

Take a look at Census 2002, Volume 4, Usual Residence and Migation, Birthplaces and Nationality - Table 37 page 142-143. An awful lot of them foreigner are actually things like Irish-English, Irish born in the UK, Irish-Americans and so on. Oh and there quite a few Northern Irish aswell (whether claiming Irish or UK nationality).

There were only 23,105 non-EU Europeans (half from EU+10 countries), 20,981 Africans, 21,779 Asians and maybe 25,000 of "others" here on census night 2002. Thats more like 2.5% than 6%.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I base that on the 2002 Census which found 6% of our population was non-national.

I know you're in an "ignore reason and rationality" year but just in case you missed it the 25 times, "non-national" includes those nasty foreigners from Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Leamington-On-Sea. Hence you're presumably seeking to mislead again.

I suppose it would be far too rational to point out that it seems a little silly to make a statement about the "last four years" in 2004 and have the 2002 census (not even using the previous census as a base year for the difference) as the sole basis for it?

very late edit: Obviously it also includes the 100,000 people here on work permits.

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
"non-national" includes those nasty foreigners from Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Leamington-On-Sea.

Once it's not them fellas from Leamington Spa (/me at schoolfriend).

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
Once it's not them fellas from Leamington Spa (/me at schoolfriend).

Ah well I was thinking of (cough, Royal) Leamington Spa but decided to make up a nice Englishy name a bit closer to the seaside. Apparently the locals reckon Alastair Crowley cursed the town so that any locals who leave are destined to return so we'll not be seeing any immigrants from there. Colin Jordan went to school there AFAIK so they've a miniature anti-immigrant tradition of their own.

Not that this has anything to do with anything really...:), sorry for the temporary tangent

Victor

		2002		2002		1996	
		nationality	birthplace	birthplace
Non-EU 
Europeans	23,105		 26,235		 3,605

Africans	20,981		 26,515		 4,867

Asians		21,779		 28,132		 8,150

Others		25,000		 37,818		25,122

Total		90,865 		118,700 	41,744 

1996 figures from http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=487 and are based on place of birth as nationality would appear not to have been recorded in 1996. For comparision I include place of birth for 2002 from http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=271

Yes, there has been a fair rise, buy they all suddenly didn't start appearing in the last 4 years.

Tuars

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yes but the 200,000 happened only in the last 4 years or so. At that rate there would be 2 MILLION in this country in 40 years.

I wouldn't worry. At that rate there'll be 40 MILLION of "us" in this country.:rolleyes:

Meanwhile back in the real world Irish birth-rates have dropped by over 50% in the last thirty years yet our maternity wards are at bursting points due to a few "citizenship tourists". Why are we closing the maternity hospitals ad cutting back on the funding?

Also, in the real world, asylum seekers aren't allowed on council housing waiting lists.

arcadegame2004

Well Health spending has actually doubled under FF-PDs.

Foreigners should not be encouraged to place such a burden on the Irish state. A yes vote will deter many. A No vote will encourage MANY to come here to give birth in Ireland as a cynical device to prevent their deportation.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Health spending has actually doubled under FF-PDs.

And common agreement has been that has not translated into a doubling of services. All it has really done is create rich medical and management grades to vote for the PDs. A nurse or patient isn't really better off than 10 years ago.

MadsL

God, Arcade you do spout some bollox...

This referendum is needed partly to introduce some element of planning and control

And it will introduce that how??

At that rate there would be 2 MILLION in this country in 40 years. How the hell are you going to find the cash to pay to house/treat all those people?

God, scary foreigners like, uggh...

I don't suppose you might have looked outside the fúcking door...these people are working you fecking moron. A lot of them were invited here to work...4 years ago FAS was trumpeting ireland around S.Africa, Czech Republic - begging people to come and fuel the celtic tiger. You, a truly ignorant, selfish spawn-of-satan cub of that tiger, now expect them to p1ss off after they have helped build a successful Ireland because you want a "No Dogs, No Blacks, Irish only need apply' economy.

A more spineless individual I have yet to meet.

Time Magazine

Certainly the points so far by the "Yes" men have been... let's say.... "ambiguous". However I am interested in the thought that if a non-national has a kid here that they can't be deported?? Why? Is it that they can't be deported and can get asylum seeker status or is it literally they can stay here but not work nor get SW etc?? It seems a bit strange.

arcadegame2004

AngryBanana I think you are referring to the Chen case.

In that case a Chinese woman faced deportation from the UK. SHe was advised by her lawyer to travel to NI to give birth there in order to get Irish citizenship under the GFA provisions that anyone born in Ireland gets Irish citizenship. She gave birth there to Catherine Chen, who was thus an Irish and EU citizen. Then, the European COurt of Justice ruled that the parents of Catherine Chen could not be deported from the EU as the parents derived EU residency rights from their daughter.

This is a major reason to vote yes. We dont want asylum-seekers who face deportation from other EU states converging on Irish hospitals pregnant to repeat Chen's trick.

MadsL

We dont want asylum-seekers who face deportation from other EU states converging on Irish hospitals pregnant to repeat Chen's trick.

But it is OK for Irish women to travel to Britain for abortions, gain divorces, re-marry under a more liberal legal system??

Is that OK?

Time Magazine

I know what case I'm referring to but that doesn't answer my question. Say if Chen came here, gave birth and hence the child got citizenship - what is Chen (the mother's) position then? (assuming the court accepts the summary and all that)

1. Can she be deported?
2. Can she work?
3. Can she claim SW?


(And I mean within Ireland)

sceptre

Originally posted by Angry Banana
I know what case I'm referring to but that doesn't answer my question. Say if Chen came here, gave birth and hence the child got citizenship - what is Chen (the mother's) position then? (assuming the court accepts the summary and all that)

1. Can she be deported?
2. Can she work?
3. Can she claim SW?


(And I mean within Ireland)

Can be deported
Can work if granted residency rights (but only if granted residency rights)
Can claim social welfare if granted residency rights (but only if granted residency rights)

My answers are (obviously) dependent on a child born in this jurisdiction resident in this jurisdiction (which I think is what you were asking). Because of the particular judgement in the Chen case and how it differs from a judgement that could be handed down for a poor person who tries the same "trick" the social welfare thing isn't actually possible but I'll get to that tomorrow. And support it with documentation from the actual ruling (hey, wouldn't that be a novelty after all the rubbish we've heard about Chen).

Now arcadegame will disagree with me and won't give a proper reason why (apart perhaps from some tirade against hordes of foreigners taking our gurnies), though he might mention the Chen preliminary ruling[1]. Arcadegame hasn't read the actual preliminary ruling though and I'm sure on that to my satisfaction (not just from his refusal to answer when I asked the question before - and I'll explain how I know that for a fact as soon as he disagrees with my first answer (which he'll see as the key one) above as he's continuing with a key piece of disinformation that I inserted as a test of whether he'd read it or not). I'll give a proper reason why. And I'll happily explain, in advance of the public debate starting on Monday, why the Chen case is a discrimination ruling rather than an actual residency for parents ruling that has any relevance for us. And why it applies in the UK to parents of children born in the UK (including northern Ireland and hence Irish citizens) and not in Ireland to parents of children born in Ireland (including Northern Ireland and hence Irish citizens). I'll also re-state (as I've already done a few times) why the Chen ruling as it stands will not make any difference to children of asylum-seekers, which may be of interest to anyone who hasn't read the ruling but has read the rubbish our lying [2]Minister for Justice has been spreading by press-release.

As the Chen decision is irrelevant to the decision on Friday and to the debate boards.ie will be having, I'd like to see an informed debate I can enjoy rather than misinformation about Chen, the Dublin Convention and the numbers of "non-nationals" giving birth as distinct from "non-EU citizens" or "asylum-seekers", perhaps with an active discussion of the core issues that have been raised by very few no this thread or the others. As we've already discussed the non-relevance of two of those items, I'll be doing Chen next. I want to hear what our resident scaremongerer has to say about your three questions first though.

Incidentally she didn't face deportation and then have a child. Child first, then faced deportation. It's a subtle difference but it looks a little misleading the wrong way round. It's not as though Lavette Chen was an asylum-seeker.

[1]Strictly speaking it's an Advocate-General's preliminary opinion rather than a preliminary ruling. "Preliminary ruling" is a good enough description though

[2]I've said before why McDowell is a liar. He's Minister for Justice, a qualified barrister and a former Attorney-General. Hence one could reasonably expect him to be able to read and understand a simple clearly-stated unambiguous preliminary ruling. From what he's said about the "implications" of the Chen prelim ruling as opposed to what a non-idiot (me) gets from reading it, he's either an idiot savant or a liar. He may be an idiot but he's no savant, hence he's a liar. I'm shocked that no-one except for Bacik has pulled him on it in public, shocked further that people like Bertie Ahern and Jim McDaid (who patently haven't read the ruling) are repeating the rubbish and surprised that none of the national dailies appear to have examined the thing themselves. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only bloke who went to the trouble to read it so I'll put it down to laziness on the newspapers' part, laziness, misguided trust and stupidity on behalf of the politicians and a willingness to lie for the sake of propaganda (and a touch of stupidity) and hopeful craftiness on the part of our liar of a Justice Minister. Even if Michael McDowell gave a damn what anyone said about him on an internet message board he's not going to sue me for calling him a liar as he'd never win the case in court with the above logic as a defence, even with our generous libel laws.

Hobbes

Originally posted by sceptre
Can be deported
Can work if granted residency rights (but only if granted residency rights)
Can claim social welfare if granted residency rights (but only if granted residency rights)

Now imagine there is a yes vote and Chen gets Residency rights. She will have to apply for her child to have rights as well.

RainyDay

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
AngryBanana I think you are referring to the Chen case.

In that case a Chinese woman faced deportation from the UK. SHe was advised by her lawyer to travel to NI to give birth there in order to get Irish citizenship under the GFA provisions that anyone born in Ireland gets Irish citizenship. She gave birth there to Catherine Chen, who was thus an Irish and EU citizen. Then, the European COurt of Justice ruled that the parents of Catherine Chen could not be deported from the EU as the parents derived EU residency rights from their daughter.

This is a major reason to vote yes. We dont want asylum-seekers who face deportation from other EU states converging on Irish hospitals pregnant to repeat Chen's trick.

A key feature of the Chen case was that she was a person of 'considerable means' - this was explicitly called out in the judgement. The judgement would not apply to the average asylum-seeker.

arcadegame2004

Rainyday, REGARDLESS of her "means", she and her like should not have the right to abuse our citizenship laws in this way. It reminds me of the passports for sale scheme whererby the rich got passports.

And althought her means were mentioned, the primary reason for her and her husban gettign EU-residency was that her child was an Irish/EU citizen.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Rainyday, REGARDLESS of her "means", she and her like should not have the right to abuse our citizenship laws in this way. It reminds me of the passports for sale scheme whererby the rich got passports.

And althought her means were mentioned, the primary reason for her and her husban gettign EU-residency was that her child was an Irish/EU citizen.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd certainly have preferred if you'd chosen to answer sceptres last post before that one.

RainyDay

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Rainyday, REGARDLESS of her "means", she and her like should not have the right to abuse our citizenship laws in this way.

You're choosing to ignore my point. I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of the Chen judgement. I was pointing out that those who use the Chen case as proof of the 'open the floodgates' argument are on dodgy ground. The fact that she wasn't going to be a burden on the state was a key feature in granting her child citizenship.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And althought her means were mentioned, the primary reason for her and her husban gettign EU-residency was that her child was an Irish/EU citizen.

Please quote your source for confirmation of the primacy issue.

arcadegame2004

Sceptre, you seem to be saying that a poor person might have had a different experience with respect to EU-residency rights from Chen. If this were so, and I am not saying it is, then surely this is a throwback to the infmaous passports-for-sale idea of the richer getting treated differently from every other non-national? Another reason to vote "Yes".

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sceptre, you seem to be saying that a poor person might have had a different experience with respect to EU-residency rights from Chen.

I seem to be saying? Erm, that's exactly what I'm saying. I doubt I could have been any more clear that that's what I'm saying.

If this were so, and I am not saying it is,

If you'd actually read the thing before prattling on about it...

then surely this is a throwback to the infmaous passports-for-sale idea of the richer getting treated differently from every other non-national?

It's got pretty much nothing in common with the infamous passports-for-sale thing. Read my next post and you'll know all about the case, which would be infinitely more than you now know. Given that you're a self-professed afficionado of 1980s neo-neo-classical laissez-faire economics I find it ironic that you're playing the "treating rich people differently from the poor auld poor" card but whatever floats your boat.

I can see that you may move your goalposts from "Chen opens the floodgates for hordes of Nigerian beggars and crime lords" to "Chen treats people with money differently from hordes of Nigerian beggars and crime lords". Please let me know if you do as I'll get some popcorn ready.

Originally posted by RainyDay
Please quote your source for confirmation of the primacy issue.

He doesn't have any because he hasn't read it.

sceptre

OK so, quick run-down of Chen then for anyone still willing to be bored (I typed this on Sunday).

I'm sure most people are familiar with the pertinent facts but in case you aren't:
Lavette Chen and her husband are Chinese nationals. They work for a company whose registered office is in the PR of China. Mrs Chen wanted to have a second child, contrary to China's one-child policy (extra children are usually aborted but that's by-the-by, either way they want one child per couple). Having consulted with lawyers, she went to Belfast to give birth. The child, Kunqian Catherine Zhu, was born in Belfast and is hence an Irish national, as she would have been if born at any time since 1921. As an Irish national she is a citizen of the EU. She did not acquire British nationality and can't acquire Chinese nationality (this is mentioned in the advocate-general's legal opinion). As an aside, under these circumstances, a child born in a similar situation even if the amendment is passed would be fully entitled to be an Irish national due to the provisions in the draft legislation allowing children who can't get their parents' nationality to be an Irish citizen from birth. Mrs Chen applied for a permit to remain permanently in the UK and this was refused by the Home Office.

The case was taken to examine whether Catherine, an EU citizen, was vested with a right of residence and whether her mother also enjoyed such a right deriving from her daughter's right ("as the person primarily responsible fr her daughter's care and upbringing")

The deal with the case is that any national court can seek a ruling from the EU Court of Justice on any domestic case. It's often done in situations where a case may be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the event of a loss. This essentially allows a lower court to get a ruling (technically a preliminary ruling) from the higher court before it makes its own ruling. On average it saves time and hassle. Our High and Supreme Courts have done it a number of times to the the terror of legal students. Because the EU Court of Justice is backlogged years due to the large volume of cases as well as some element of laziness and ineptitude, the procedure is that an advocate-general's ruling is usually made after a certain period of time (could be months, could be years (this one took years)), which essentially makes a suggestion to the court of a legal solution to the case before it. An Advocate-General isn't acting for wither side, he's a judge rather than a lawyer. On average the advocate-general's presented opinions have been followed by the Court about 80% of the time. This makes it four times more likely (on average) that this ruling will be followed. It's worth remembering that this isn't like a lottery and every case is decided on its own merits. In other words, historical data would indicate that this ruling is likely to be followed. Nothing more. I suspect that the ruling will be followed as it makes sense under my interpretation of the various Treaties.

On to the case. Mrs Chen appealled the refusal of her residence permit, on behalf of her and her daughter, to the Immigration Appellate Authority. The IAA sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice. The opinion of the advocate-general (which remember is a preliminary preliminary ruling:D) was received on May 18 this year. Which brings us to the actual ruling.

Firstly the Advocate-General considered the right of the appellants (Mrs Chen and her daughter) to freedom of movement within the EU. Sounds like a nutty place to start but it was necessary to do this to consider whether EU law (rather than UK national law) was relevent at all. Neither Mrs Chen nor her daughter had ever crossed a national frontier within the EU. Hence they had never availed of the right of freedom of movement. However possession of the nationality of a member State (Ireland) other than the State of residence (the UK) provides a link with EU law and hence EU law is relevant to the right of residence even though they'd never crossed a border.

Secondly, the A-G stated that a minor (Catherine) can be vested personally with the right of residence and freedom of movement within the EU. I've italicised "can be" and it is distinct from "is". The A-G considered whether a minor could be vested with the rights rather than the possibility of a minor automatically receiving them. Immediately after stating that the child could be vested with these rights, the A-G stated the relevance of Catherine's ability to pay for her own medical care with regard to the right of residence and based the right of residence (using the word "consequently") on the fact that "Catherine is covered by adequate sickness insurance and, through the members of her family, has at her disposal sufficient resources to ensure that, during her stay, she does not become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State". In other words, Catherine gets right of residency because she can pay her own way and won't ever have to bum money.

Thirdly the A-G moved to Lavette Chen's claim to residency. Here's where we get to the real nub of the case - the discrimination ruling. This is where UK law and case-law kicks in as relevant and here's where the distinction arises with our law in Ireland. EU Court of Justice case law "indicates that where the children enjoy a right to reside in the host Member State, Community law allows the parent with responsibility for them, regardless of the parent’s nationality, to reside with them in order to facilitate their exercise of that right" (emphasis is mine because the more alert among us will see the relevance (which I'll get to in a minute)). The Court found that this was very important ("a fortiori") in the case of a very young child. In other words, if the individual EU State confers a right of residence on the child, the mother gets to stay too. If the individual EU State does not confer this right, the child doesn't get to stay and hence neither does the mother. The key here is that under UK law (not EU law), if the child was a British citizen, the mother would be allowed to stay even if the mother was a non-EU citizen. UK courts (unlike Irish courts(see below)) have made this ruling in the past. Because Catherine is not a UK citizen (but is an EU citizen and enjoys freedom of movement in her own right within the EU where a residency right exists (see above)), she would be discriminated against merely because she is not a British citizen (or as the A-G put it, "there would be a difference of treatment not justified by any objective reason.").

Hence the Advocate-general's suggestion for a ruling is "that the Court should rule that the United Kingdom measures constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to the EC Treaty".

In Ireland, unlike the UK, children born here of non-national partnes enjoy no automatic residency rights as they do in the UK. This has been confirmed in the Osayande and Lobe decisions. I've commented extensively on the decisions in these cases (as well as the decisions in P v Minister for Justice, L v Minster for Justice and B v Minister for Justice) on this forum for those handy with the search button. Re-tracing the decisions in these cases wouldn't serve any purpose anyway. The fact of the matter is that the decision in Chen is particular to people with the financial resources to verifiably support themselves and does not make any difference to asylum applicants in Ireland (who don't have these verifiable resources) or in fact any children born in Ireland with non-national parents (as the decision is based on anti-discrimination law due to the particulars of British law and does not affect residency applications in Ireland) while the Osayande and Lobe decisions, which firmly confirm the right of the Irish State to deport non-national non-resident parents of Irish citizens, remain in force. And as I've stated above, Lavette Chen's daughter, Kunqian Catherine Zhu, would still be able to claim Irish citizenship if born in Belfast in three months time even if the amendment was passed this week.

In other words, for us, Chen doesn't change a thing. Fundamentally, it's a UK discrimination case taken under UK law (and limited EU law where appropriate) to a UK Court that sought an EU legal opinion for a UK resident. Chen can't happen here under current law (see Supreme Court cases referred to above). So please, after the effort I've gone to hopefully make you all aware of exactly what the Chen case was about and what the decision means [1], no more talk of Chen, no more talk of non-applicable Dublin Conventions, preferably no more misleading statistics from either side (including involving the magic phrase "non-nationals" that includes British and French people) and please discuss the relevant things instead. Good luck to the debaters.


[1]All joking aside, if you've managed to make it all the way through this (hopefully semi-coherent) post, you probably now know more about the Chen case and its implications than almost anyone working for an Irish newspaper, almost all Dail TDs and public representatives, well over half of the Irish legal community (and maybe a lot more) and pretty much everyone else in the country. That's not me being cocky - though it's a shame, you know it's likely to be true.

edited for typos, I think I've caught them all:)

arcadegame2004

Having consulted with lawyers, she went to Belfast to give birth.

You neglected to mention that she lived in Wales at the time. It's not as if she fled China.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You neglected to mention that she lived in Wales at the time. It's not as if she fled China.

I neglected to mention it because I don't know this to be so. Just as I didn't post that Lavette Chen was wearing red socks when she gave birth. I know they're living in Cardiff now. I have no idea where they were living beforehand. If they were living in Wales before she gave birth, post a source that says they were. Every piece of information in my post above about the Chen case comes from the Chen A-G opinion except for the Irish cases (which come from the Irish cases). That's a primary source of information for everything above. Do likewise. Also post information saying that she was legally resident in Wales (this you won't find as she wasn't as this is what she was applying for). edit: I wouldn't normally request this but your understanding of the case so far appears to make verification necessary of everything you say.

And in any case that's irrelevant as neither of them were asylum seekers. Knock knock, turn brain on. And in any case that wouldn't be relevant as you're still going on about the Dublin convention I suppose.

Post a source for this irrelevant piece of information or shut up and read. Seriously.

MadsL

Recently I said of Arcadegame2004...

You, a truly ignorant, selfish spawn-of-satan cub of that tiger, now expect them to p1ss off after they have helped build a successful Ireland because you want a "No Dogs, No Blacks, Irish only need apply' economy.

A more spineless individual I have yet to meet.

The Mods have asked me to apologise. Apparantly this was a 'blatent personal attack'. In the light of the fact that the debate is upcoming and that Arcadegame2004 has me on his ignore list (he ignores anything contrary to his view of the world) I am prepared to explain my comments.

...ignorant...
As a non-national in this country, as is my wife, I find it personally offensive to be lumped into a bunch of nonsense figures and statistics that are banded about without any understanding of the truth behind those statistics. I hear stories daily of the poor treatment of obviously non-national people by ignorant people who believe such statistics. It saddens me that the Government is the worst offender. Arcade should have 58% tattooed on his forehead, as he brings it up at every opportunity, despite having this repeatedly shot down by links to the real statistics.

...selfish..
Young men like AG have gained enormous financial benefit from foreign workers in the Irish economy, some - like my wife, were recruited outside of the country because the skills to drive the boom were lacking. A few years later they are told 'no more work-permits being issued' The attitude of AG to this is that somehow we should repeal EU law and institute some form of Irish positive descrimination in the labour market, and deport these 'scroungers'. I consider this a deeply selfish policy.

...spawn-of-satan
Was there for purely alliterative purposes and I'll withdraw the remark.

...spineless...
My offer to donate money to charity if Arcade would apologise for his comments was not taken up, nor has he posted any evidence to back this up. I'm at a loss to find any other adjective to describe someone who cannot bring themselves to justify comments once they have been repeatedly called out on the matter, one of the mods even called him a liar. I'll withdraw the comment as offensive to invertebrates and stick with liar until he proves the matter.

..moron
What else do you call someone who seems to think that "Yes but the 200,000 happened only in the last 4 years or so. At that rate there would be 2 MILLION in this country in 40 years. How the hell are you going to find the cash to pay to house/treat all those people?"

I cannot ram rudimentary economic theory in his head and in frustration called him a moron. I accept that this was a bit strong, and insulting. However a more spurious piece of scaremongering nonsense I am yet to see.

So Mods..I apologise to this forum, and will also as a gesture of goodwill will donate 50 euro to UNICEF. My sig will also be changed.