How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

arcadegame2004

Pete, you took my remark in the abortion debate completely out of context.

I did say it's not the fault of the child they are born.

What has that got to do with citizenship?

We are not morally obliged to allow parents to use their children as a way of gaining residency in the EU. WE ARE NOT.

Comparisons with the US are misleading.

North America, South America, New Zealand and Canada comprise nations of a VERY different nature from that of Europe, in terms of national identity.

They switched from being the colonies of one European nation back to others and so forth, meaning that Dutch, Spanish, English etc. colonists became the majority of the population. This led to the respective nations that eventually emerged e.g. USA, not defining their nationality on the basis of a single ethnicity or linguisiticity.

Europe is different. Traditionally in all European states but Switzerland, the nation state formed around the basis that each ethnic group should have their own state. This is NOT a racist concept. It is just the way history worked. It does NOT imply hatred of other races. I do not hate other races. But I believe in protecting Irish national identity, and that means ensuring that Irish nationals remain forever the majority in their country.

We are not a newly discovered colony seeking migrants to create a state. We are a state. An ancient nation that has no intention of being subsumed by others. Yet we are not racist against other nations. While I voted Yes in both Nice Treaty referendums, I think the original No vote can be seen as a sign that Irish people share my instincts that the Irish nation should not have their distinct identity erased. Clearly, in Europe, ethnicity is the backbone of national identity, whether you like it or not. Hence, I eish to preserve my identity. So we will not accept allowing Irish people to become a minority in our own country. That happened in the Plantations in the North in the 1600's, leading to partititon. DO you want a second partititon? I do not.

Mickah, I will now address your point. Regardless of the scale of the abuse, that is no argument for allowing it to continue. Would you favour allowing a tax-loophole to continue if it was only being abused by a few people? I firmly believe that up to 6,000 non-EU nationals births in this country fall int othe citizenship tourist category and the cost to the Health-Service financially and in terms of beds clogged-up is unacceptable to me.

Your analogy with the Famine is inaccurate, since there are no famines in Nigeria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine or Bulgaria, the main sources of the vast majority of asylum-seekers here. Nor are there wars there. Nor dictatorships. Yet they wish the State to believe they are refugees. They are not. Not unless you wish to redefine a refugee as a "poor person", which to me is absurd.

MadsL

I'd like to hear how the pressure this week in Tallaght hospital where there were 44 people on trolleys in the A&E Department, 10 in the Observation Ward, 12 in the Day Ward and 27 majors waiting to be seen, is the fault of non-nationals.

Anyone?

pete

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
At the moment, it's a right that has been gained through a loophole in Irish law. If the amendment is passed then the child won't be deprived of any right, not unless you view that right to be a basic human one. Therefore, no one is being deprived of any right to citizenship once the amendment is passed.

Let me get this straight. A child born in the Rotunda today is entitled to irish citizenship. A child born on Saturday may or may not be, depending on the credentials of their parent(s). How exactly is saturday's child not being deprived of something?



And... it's a "loophole"?

Posted by bobbyjoe on 19-05-2004 20:00:
Tightening a loophole is quite an understatement for this change we are reversing a law thats been there since 1921.

Posted by MadsL on 02-06-2004 23:40:
And this 'flaw' needs to be suddenly 'fixed' after it has been in place since 1921. When it has peformed a central role in Irish republicanism- now it should be abandoned because FF won't fund hospitals?

That, as they say, is some "loophole"....

Why is the role of the government not being fufilled? Taxpayers money and hospital beds are being taken up by the situation. I know the government squanders millions (if not billions) on other schemes, I acknowledge this and would assert that the government is not fufilling it's role correctly there too. With the proposed amendment, it should go some way to deterring non-nationals coming to the country to give birth and thus reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

I guess it's a question of priorities then. In short, it's easier to scapegoat a johnny foreigner baby than it is to actually fix the problem.

Sounds about right.

arcadegame2004

That, as they say, is some "loophole"....

No-one cared when Ireland was poor because it was not until the 1990's that we were rich and attracted thousands of asylum-seekers.

In short, it's easier to scapegoat a johnny foreigner baby than it is to actually fix the problem.

I am NOT scapegoating the baby. I am blaming the mother for only coming here pregnant so she can stay here.

You keep on arguing that this is punishing the child for the actions of his/her parents.

Which is the lesser of 2 evils? Letting the baby stay here while deporting her parents (very cruel to separate the child from his/her mother), or deporting them both? I say the latter.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Pete, you took my remark in the abortion debate completely out of context.

I did say it's not the fault of the child they are born.

What has that got to do with citizenship?

When considering the basis of your argument, it's got everything to do with it.

To summarise:

You are against the automatic granting of citizenship to all children born on the island of ireland. You have repeatedly stated that this is due, in part, to the "abuse" of a "loophole".

To solve this "problem", you propose removing this right to citizenship from the child. Not from the parent (ie the "guilty" party) - you want to strip a right from the child.

This is irreconcilable with your previously stated position that children should not be held responsible, or as you put it yourself:

"After all, it isn't the baby's fault that it was created, nor the economic/social situation of the parent."

But all this is a mere distraction when we reach this gem:

We are a state. An ancient nation that has no intention of being subsumed by others. Yet we are not racist against other nations. While I voted Yes in both Nice Treaty referendums, I think the original No vote can be seen as a sign that Irish people share my instincts that the Irish nation should not have their distinct identity erased. Clearly, in Europe, ethnicity is the backbone of national identity, whether you like it or not. Hence, I eish to preserve my identity. So we will not accept allowing Irish people to become a minority in our own country. That happened in the Plantations in the North in the 1600's, leading to partititon. DO you want a second partititon? I do not.

Thank you for finally revealing your true colours.... in a manner of speaking.

Kevin Alfred Strom, on the National Alliance's white separatist radio program American Dissident Voices, defined the difference between white separatism and supremacy this way:

"A supremacist—of whatever race—is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races—since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs." [1] (http://www.natvan.com/pub/012404.txt)

Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile contend that terms such as "white separatism" and "white nationalism" are euphemisms that have been adopted by what they refer to as neo-nazi and racist groups as a tactical move in order to make their views seem less extreme. The Center for Democratic Renewal likewise called the term "white separatist" a "media gloss."

edit: Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatist

Goodbye.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by pete
Let me get this straight. A child born in the Rotunda today is entitled to irish citizenship. A child born on Saturday may or may not be, depending on the credentials of their parent(s). How exactly is saturday's child not being deprived of something?



And... it's a "loophole"?

Perhaps my meaning is not clear, I apologise.

If the amendment is passed, then there is no right for the child of a non-national to Irish citizenship. Because there is no right, the child is not being deprived of any right to citizenship.

Originally posted by pete
I guess it's a question of priorities then. In short, it's easier to scapegoat a johnny foreigner baby than it is to actually fix the problem.

Sounds about right.

No, I never said that. I admit that this bill does very little to solve the immigration question, you are of course right it won't solve any major issues. But since it is on the table, I shall try to formulate an opinion on it.

Originally posted by MadsL
I'd like to hear how the pressure this week in Tallaght hospital where there were 44 people on trolleys in the A&E Department, 10 in the Observation Ward, 12 in the Day Ward and 27 majors waiting to be seen, is the fault of non-nationals.

Irish citizens getting injured to get into hospital shocker! Sorry, couldn't resist.

I made my point on this a little further back.

pete

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Perhaps my meaning is not clear, I apologise.

If the amendment is passed, then there is no right for the child of a non-national to Irish citizenship. Because there is no right, the child is not being deprived of any right to citizenship.

Um. Ok, it's late, but i just don't follow the logic.

By this reasoning: If you have an apple today, and I take that apple from you tomorrow, then I never actually took that apple from you because you don't have an apple? I'm a bit confused. (Unless of course you're talking about specific children, born a day apart, rather than the generality of children?)

No, I never said that. I admit that this bill does very little to solve the immigration question, you are of course right it won't solve any major issues.

Remind me again why McDowell said we needed it then?

MadsL

Europe is different. Traditionally in all European states but Switzerland, the nation state formed around the basis that each ethnic group should have their own state.

What bollox. Flemish, Alsatians, Basque, Slovaks, Carpetho-Russ...

This is NOT a racist concept. It is just the way history worked.

Err. re-read your history, to suggest that every European state has a single ethnic identity is patently untrue, the last political people to suggest this decided to gas people shortly afterward.

It does NOT imply hatred of other races. I do not hate other races. But I believe in protecting Irish national identity, and that means ensuring that Irish nationals remain forever the majority in their country.

And you'll be the judge of that identitythen will you. Can you describe 'national identity' for us??

We are not a newly discovered colony seeking migrants to create a state. We are a state. An ancient nation that has no intention of being subsumed by others.
Apart from the Vikings, Normans, English, Spanish, French, Dutch and many other nations that have both conquered and inter-bred with the Irish.

Yet we are not racist against other nations.
Yet racist attacks are on the increase

While I voted Yes in both Nice Treaty referendums, I think the original No vote can be seen as a sign that Irish people share my instincts that the Irish nation should not have their distinct identity erased.
Decribe "distinct identity" - would Phil Lynott count?


Clearly, in Europe, ethnicity is the backbone of national identity, whether you like it or not.
That rules out Phillo then, and Dev...

Hence, I eish to preserve my identity. So we will not accept allowing Irish people to become a minority in our own country. That happened in the Plantations in the North in the 1600's, leading to partititon. DO you want a second partititon? I do not.

Yeah, let just deport all the Anglo-Irish...and the Kinsellas, bloody Spanish...and Ray D'Arcy, bloody French...

Mickah, I will now address your point. Regardless of the scale of the abuse, that is no argument for allowing it to continue. Would you favour allowing a tax-loophole to continue if it was only being abused by a few people?
You mean like U2?

I firmly believe that up to 6,000 non-EU nationals births in this country fall int othe citizenship tourist category and the cost to the Health-Service financially and in terms of beds clogged-up is unacceptable to me.

And you have no clue how to prove this...you just 'feel' it...but aren't racist. Would you allow Americans with Irish passports access to healthcare?

Your analogy with the Famine is inaccurate, since there are no famines in Nigeria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine or Bulgaria, the main sources of the vast majority of asylum-seekers here. Nor are there wars there. Nor dictatorships. Yet they wish the State to believe they are refugees. They are not. Not unless you wish to redefine a refugee as a "poor person", which to me is absurd.

Nigeria - 10,000 dead about the same asdead Iraqis since the invasion. Gays are regularly beaten to death and face 14 years in prison if caught.
Persecution of the Roma ethnic group is well documented in Romania, Ukraine and Bulgaria but here's a sample
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=1269

According to Veaceslav Turcanu, vice president of Amnesty International’s Moldova branch, the human rights situation in the country is worsening. "Seven years after Moldova joined the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, we are seeing numerous cases of torture and violations of the right to defense,” Turcanu says

Not unless you wish to redefine a refugee as a "poor person", which to me is absurd.

You might want to consult a dictionary then and get a job in the justice dept...The Irish Govt recognises Nigeria as being a country where...


...owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Mickah
1) Even if a child born to say a Filipino Nurse isn't immediately entitled to Irish citizenship, how long must they live here to get it?

It is proposed that children with at least one parent legally resident for three years will be entitled to citizenship by birth.

Originally posted by Mickah
2) A child born to a mother just flown in from wherever attains Irish/EU Citizenship. Does this or does this not entitle or strengthen the parent(s) case to EU/Irish citizenship?

There is no impact on the parents' citizenship rights, good, bad or indifferent. There is an impact on their right to reside in the EU. Parents of an Irish child can be deported from Ireland, along with the child. However, the preliminary ruling in the Chen case suggests that parents of an Irish child do have a right to live in other EU states if they are able to support themselves. More often than not the preliminary ruling in European Court cases is a fair indication of what the final ruling will be.

Pete's line is a bit simplistic, and rushes past the issue which is that granting Irish citizenship in cases where people are simply entering the state briefly to obtain a flag of convenience undermines the argument that place of birth is an unquestionably pure way of granting citizenship. A residency requirement is needed to ensure that citizenship applies, as it should, only to children of non-nationals who actually live here.

Its not a numbers game, although its the 'yes' campaigns own fault for trying to make it one. Its simply a matter of having meaningful laws. If you've read the posts from page 25 you'll know what I've been saying, so I'll only briefly bang my drum again that no-one has been able to explain why Irish citizenship should be extended as a flag of convenience to people with no real link to the place, not even an Irish granddaddy.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by pete
Um. Ok, it's late, but i just don't follow the logic.

By this reasoning: If you have an apple today, and I take that apple from you tomorrow, then I never actually took that apple from you because you don't have an apple? I'm a bit confused. (Unless of course you're talking about specific children, born a day apart, rather than the generality of children?)

Let me try to clarify, not that it really matters, it's semantics. At the moment, a child born to a non-national has an automatic right to citizenship. Now, wether this a loophole being exploited, legislation that needs to be tightened up or even perfectly acceptable is irrelevent. Nevertheless, the child has this right to Irish citizenship at the moment. Now, if the amendment is passed, any child born after the referendum then loses this right. Therefore under the amendment and new law, that child has no right to citizenship since it was removed.

Originally posted by pete
Remind me again why McDowell said we needed it then?

I have no idea, electioneering, keeping the darkies out, fear of a hospital bed been taken up in the event of crotch rot?

Fair play on the debate, you've given me something to think about. It wasn't until I read through this thread that I realised how narrow and ineffective this referendum is. I'm off to bed, good luck.

pete

Originally posted by ishmael whale
There is no impact on the parents' citizenship rights, good, bad or indifferent. There is an impact on their right to reside in the EU. Parents of an Irish child can be deported from Ireland, along with the child. However, the preliminary ruling in the Chen case suggests that parents of an Irish child do have a right to live in other EU states if they are able to support themselves. More often than not the preliminary ruling in European Court cases is a fair indication of what the final ruling will be.

Uhh i'm not entirely sure that's what the law talkin' guy said here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1680702#post1680702

Pete's line is a bit simplistic, and rushes past the issue which is that granting Irish citizenship in cases where people are simply entering the state briefly to obtain a flag of convenience undermines the argument that place of birth is an unquestionably pure way of granting citizenship. A residency requirement is needed to ensure that citizenship applies, as it should, only to children of non-nationals who actually live here.

It's ok, pete's a bit simplistic himself.

Although i don't like to think of it as simplistic - i think of it as what should be the core issue. I worked in the department of social welfare for 4 years and saw plenty of abuses of the system there... didn't hear too many people crying out to close down the whole thing though. That'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water. A bit like the situation we currently find ourselves in, I spose.

Its not a numbers game, although its the 'yes' campaigns own fault for trying to make it one. Its simply a matter of having meaningful laws. If you've read the posts from page 25 you'll know what I've been saying, so I'll only briefly bang my drum again that no-one has been able to explain why Irish citizenship should be extended as a flag of convenience to people with no real link to the place, not even an Irish granddaddy.

No link other than being born here, that is.

Remember: it's the child, not the parents, at the core of this whole thing.

pete

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Let me try to clarify, not that it really matters, it's semantics. At the moment, a child born to a non-national has an automatic right to citizenship. Now, wether this a loophole being exploited, legislation that needs to be tightened up or even perfectly acceptable is irrelevent. Nevertheless, the child has this right to Irish citizenship at the moment. Now, if the amendment is passed, any child born after the referendum then loses this right. Therefore under the amendment and new law, that child has no right to citizenship since it was removed.

In other words, a child born the day after the amendment is passed has less rights than a child born the day before the amendment is passed.

Explain to me again how they're not losing out?

arcadegame2004

Pete, you are again misrepresenting me by comparing me to fascists!

I deplore the US National Alliance's views.

I never said I was opposed to a multiracial society.

But I did say I want Irish people to be the majority in their own country.

I believe the vast majority support that idea.

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

But I did say I want Irish people to be the majority in their own country.

But the legal definition of "Irish" at the moment is anyone born in Ireland, which seems pretty fair to me.

How would you define "Irish?" if not "someone born in Ireland?"

arcadegame2004

Wicknight, to me you are only Irish in one of two scenarios:

A:You have an Irish-born parent.

OR

B:Your parent has lived here legally for at least 3 years.

MadsL

A:You have an Irish-born parent. OR B:Your parent has lived here legally for at least 3 years.

So that's the American 2nd generation out then?

Now define "Irish-born" would that would be someone born in Ireland? Don't you find it odd that in trying to define nationality it is necessary to use the phrase "Irish-born" in your own restrictive definition.

I think you are getting confused.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Pete, you are again misrepresenting me by comparing me to fascists!

I deplore the US National Alliance's views.

I never said I was opposed to a multiracial society.

But I did say I want Irish people to be the majority in their own country.

I believe the vast majority support that idea.

if it walks like a duck....

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No-one cared when Ireland was poor because it was not until the 1990's that we were rich and attracted thousands of asylum-seekers.

And before that for about 150 years Irish people were emmigrating in droves.
That was ok was it? But now that "they're" coming here (and they have the nerve not to be white too) and stealing our job blah blah people are up in arms?
You know, for someone who claims not to be racist you really bring up anti-asylum thing alot, considering this referendum is about citizenship AND considering that not all foreign people are asylum seekers AND considering that not all asylum claims are false.
BTW, are you accusing the Filipino nurses of being wrong now? I thought you liked them?

bonkey

Folx...

I think this thread has come to a logical conclusion, for a number of reasons :

Firstly and foremostly, we're now going in circles. The same information is being mis-presented and mis-stated over and over despite the incorrectness already being acknowledged.

Secondly, this over-and-over that I just mentioned is indicative of the fact that this discussion is going nowhere. Its looping on itself and seems to be stuck that way. Any new points raised on either side) are either answered with the same old dogma (regardless of whether the response has already been debunked or not), or are just entirely ignored - presumably because the same old dogma won't answer it

Thirdly, if I don't lock it, the number of bans which will be picked up in the next 24 hours is likely to be a boards all-time record, as the level of acrimony has already risen to levels that are unacceptable, and its only getting worse.

Fourthly, there is a debate currently running on Logos on this very subject, and the Pathos forum for discussing the posts made by those involved. I would suggest that both to help said debate to be a thundering success, and also to get a fresh start rather than running in circles, you all take your discussion there for the time being.

So - I'm closing this thread. I'm closing the other referenda threads, posting the same message to each. Any referendum thread which starts up this week (i.e. prior to the conclusion of the debate) and is just another carbon-copy of the existant ones will also be closed.

jc