How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

arcadegame2004 · 16-05-2004 11:53pm

sixtysix, we have already allowed 150,000 legal migrants to come here from outside of the EU-15 via work-permits. It is estimated that in future, we will be able to meet the vast majority of our needs in respect of labour-shortages from within migration ( which has no restrictions ) from the new Eastern European states. However, the Accession Treaty allows us to impose restrictions before 2009, when all restrictions on movement are due to end, and indeed all EU countries except us and Britain are doing so. I feel that we should not have unlimited legal migration of workers to this country. I am against allowing asylum-seekers to work because we already have a mechanism for filling particular labour shortages. Present regulations for work-permits are that the employer must prove that there is no Irish or EU national prepared to take up the job before a work-permit may be issued to a non-EU national. To allow all asylum-seekers to work would mean that REGARDLESS of whether an Irish person was available to do the relevant job, the employer could still take on the asylum seeker, who obviously, would be prepared to work for far lower wages than an potential Irish worker. Hence, Irish people could be priced out of employment if your idea was implemented.

Agent Orange · 16-05-2004 11:59pm

I don't like the look of all those foreigners around so I'm voting yes.

sceptre · 17-05-2004 12:05am

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
So in other words, you must have at least one parent born on the island of Ireland to be automatically born into Irish citizenship.

Not quite. It doesn't matter where the parent has been born, all that matters is that the child is born on the island of Ireland and that they have a parent that is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. That's what the proposed article actually says. Having a parent who was born here is obviously the easiest way for the moment but given that the proposed amendment will result in people born here not being Irish citizens, should they have children here under any circumstances in the future, assuming they haven't become citizens or for whatever reason have a right to citizenship, the Irish citizenship (or not) of their children will be governed by their legal right to be resident here (and hence in a manner provided for by law).

So what you might say is: "So in other words, you must have a parent that is an Irish citizen or is entitled to be an Irish citizen, regardless of where they themselves have been born, to be automatically born into Irish citizenship". It's not even a subtle difference. Might as well know exactly what's up for discussion.

(keeping in mind that the draft Implementing Bill proposed the entitlement to Irish citizenship for those who don't achieve citizenship at birth to be someone born to non-national parents, either of whom has lived legally in the State for three of the preceding four years OR a person born anywhere on the island with a parent who is a UK citizen without a restriction on their period of residence OR a person born anywhere on the island to a parent who has an entitlement to live in the State without a time restriction OR a person born anywhere on the island with a parent who has been legally resident in Northern ireland for three of the preceding four years OR, under section 6 of the 1956 Act, a child born in Ireland to non-national parents who would have no nationality if not granted Irish citizenship, which will remain unchanged)

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 12:06am

Agent Orange, I doubt I am wrong in suspect a note of irony in your post. For me and most "Yes" voters this has nothing to do with disliking foreigners. It is about avoiding the waste of Irish taxpayer money on benefit-tourists. We are truly a soft touch on asylum and it's time the abuse of our hospitality stopped.

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 12:07am

Sceptre you are not disputing then that NI Nationalists do not lose citizenship under the Government's proposals?

sixtysix · 17-05-2004 12:09am

you are ignoring the fact that europe is not replenishising its population.
the most successful economy is america whered i believe spanish is now spoken by more people than english.america has a very active immigartion policy founded on need not fear
has the world ended for that

MadsL · 17-05-2004 12:29am

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
MadSL I have the info source you were looking for regarding evidence of the claim for how much asylum-seekers cost the State.

http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-03/10Apr/Sect2.htm

Quoting the relvant passage, it states:

"Overseen by the Reception and Integration Agency established for the purpose, the State feeds, houses and clothes those awaiting decisions on their claims, and ensures that their medical needs are catered for. By way of illustration, a sum in the region of €340 million was spent in 2002 on State services for asylum seekers."

I can think of far more worthwhile causes for this sum to be spent on. And no, I am not talkign about corrupt politicians, the LUAS etc. I am talking about the repair of run-down school buildings ,e.g. the scandalous conditions in that Donegal school recently reported on, as well as the NDP and the Health-service. Let whatever the first EU of entry for these people was cater for their needs. They will face no danger in that State.

I'm grateful for Deputy Gregory's comments yesterday in the Dail

- that the Government has squandered up to €60 million of taxpayers’ money on the electronic voting fiasco;

-- that the Government has squandered up to €199.8 million on the clearing of the site at Abbotstown;

-- that hundreds of millions of euros in taxation is forgone due to exemptions granted by Government to wealthy tax exiles, stud farm owners, mega-rich rock stars and authors;

-- that the Government has squandered up to €15 million on the Punchestown Equestrian Centre;

-- that the Government has squandered up to €100 million due to its failure to address the excessive fees paid to the legal profession in the tribunals of inquiry;

-- the two recent budgets where tax reductions on the profits of major corporations resulted in a loss of €634 million each year to the Exchequer; and

-- the mismanagement by the Government causing massive cost over-runs on the Luas project;

If I can misquote him...
in the context of the accumulated loss of up to €1 billion by Government mismanagement..... the spending of 350m euro on protecting the rights of asylum seekers seems good value. Surely one of their kids could make a better job of running the country than Bertie..

sceptre · 17-05-2004 12:32am

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sceptre you are not disputing then that NI Nationalists do not lose citizenship under the Government's proposals?

Rather than give the impression you're correcting me on something I didn't even address, do me a favour and go back and actually read my post (especially the five choices for conditions that I've included in parentheses). I'm disputing nothing and confirming nothing but the incorrect part of your post that I corrected. If the quoted part of your post was correct I wouldn't have had to post the above in the first place.

In any case, no-one "loses citizenship" under the amendment. Proposed amendment, Article 9, section 2, subsection 2. Stop wasting my time with loaded questions - address them to the class:ninja:. It's all covered in the proposed amendment (which I've quoted /in full/ and the Implementation Bill (available from the department of Justice site). And I apologise if I'm coming across as heavy handed but loaded questions that have already been explained are pretty annoying. The necessity to correct misleading posts is also something we could all do without. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts and never should the twain be confused. Kudos to the people on this thread and the myriad of other threads who are in fact presenting their opinions as their opinions.

Honkytonk · 17-05-2004 12:44am

Quote
"I will vote "Yes" and urge others to do likewise to stop the abuses of our SW system, especially regarded free housing, that are costing us 350 million euro. This bill is sure to rise in future years because of A: our pathetic 5% deportation rate of asylum-seekers that arrived in 2003 (ie it would take 100 years to deport all illegal immigrants last year alone = 500 years to deport all illegals in Ireland at the moment!!!!)"
I am reminded of the prediction in 1860 that at current rates of increase, London would be completely covered by horse droppings by the year 1920. Yes I am that old.

Once accession countries (and others) come into line economically the number of economic migrants will drop off. Just as Ireland's emigration rate has dropprd off in recent years.

MadsL · 17-05-2004 1:01am

sixtysix, we have already allowed 150,000 legal migrants to come here from outside of the EU-15 via work-permits.

Yes, after FAS went on tour to promote Ireland and asked, no begged 'non-nationals' to come work here.

It is estimated that in future, we will be able to meet the vast majority of our needs in respect of labour-shortages from within migration ( which has no restrictions ) from the new Eastern European states.

Great, net immigration stimulates demand which means production which means increased economic growth. They will also pay into the pension fund, and probably leave the country before claiming it. More money all round then.

However, the Accession Treaty allows us to impose restrictions before 2009, when all restrictions on movement are due to end, and indeed all EU countries except us and Britain are doing so. I feel that we should not have unlimited legal migration of workers to this country.

Absolutely! I'm so glad that USA, UK, Australia and South Africa were so ardent at keeping the Irish out in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's. We need STRONG borders, economic migrants, pfft! who needs 'em? Now, who wants a job lifting spuds?

I am against allowing asylum-seekers to work because we already have a mechanism for filling particular labour shortages.

mechanism = Phillipino nurses on one month contracts.

Present regulations for work-permits are that the employer must prove that there is no Irish or EU national prepared to take up the job before a work-permit may be issued to a non-EU national.

So you believe that employers do not have the right to employ the person they feel is best able for the job, has the qualifications etc. If they get a top-notch Harvard MBA, with 10 years experience, they have to say "Sorry, we have an Irish person, with a Leaving Cert and a bit of an idea about how to do the job, so we have to give it to them."

To allow all asylum-seekers to work would mean that REGARDLESS of whether an Irish person was available to do the relevant job, the employer could still take on the asylum seeker, who obviously, would be prepared to work for far lower wages than an potential Irish worker.

Errr...thanks to the unions, there is this thing called a minimum wage. An employer paying below this is acting illegally.

Hence, Irish people could be priced out of employment if your idea was implemented

Welcome to the global economy. Get over it. If it weren't for the likes of Enron, 9/11, Bush, Oil and any number of things that Bertie can't control...I might not have lost my job twice in the last two years. Ireland needs competitive advantage, and like it or not that competitive advantage is being slowly bled to the likes of Bangalore. We need cheaper labour here to allow us compete again, and migrant workers help drive that growth. Jeez even Dubya has figured that one out.

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 1:47am

"you are ignoring the fact that europe is not replenishising its population.
the most successful economy is america whered i believe spanish is now spoken by more people than english."

Europe is not a single entity. Our state still has a natural increase in population i.e. births higher than deaths. Including when non-national births are removed from the equation. Spanish is not spoken by more people than English in the US. Where on earth did you hear that?

"Errr...thanks to the unions, there is this thing called a minimum wage. An employer paying below this is acting illegally." (MadsL)

The minimum-wage is not effectively enforced, due to a lack of inspectors.

I believe that the needs of Irish people come first and that, as such, if there is a suitable candidate from among the irish unemployed for a certain job, then that job should go to him/her. To do otherwise is not only against the national-interest, but will also fuel resentment and racism.

For evidence of this, you only have to look at the situation in those countries in Europe with the highest proportions of non-EU national immigrant populations. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria. All of which have roughly 20% of the electorate voting for the Far-Right. I don't think we want that here.

"Once accession countries (and others) come into line economically the number of economic migrants will drop off. Just as Ireland's emigration rate has dropprd off in recent years." (Honkytonk)

True but what does that have to do with the Citizenship referendum?

MadSL, while I share your annoyance at the instances of wastage of taxpayer's money in those instances, that does not justify further waste of money on asylum-seekers who face no danger by staying put in Italy, Germany, Spain or whatever is the first EU state they enter.

Victor · 17-05-2004 12:00pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"If you were an Iraqi, would you be happy with claiming asylum in the UK at the moment?" Why not do it in Greece?

Because the ship was going to Liverpool?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I know of no theory that states that paying asylum-seekers (a category not entitled to work) to sit on their hands for years and years increases GDP. I will post a link for the other info shortly.

Then give them the right to work.

Redleslie · 17-05-2004 12:28pm

Poeple say that it's not a racist referendum but I can't imagine that many bigots/xenophobes/those who say they're not racist but merely opposed to multiculturalism, will be voting no. Even PD TDs find the referendum "distasteful" as Liz O'Donnell put it.

MadsL · 17-05-2004 2:26pm

@ arcadegame>>

You have not answered the following.

1. (you) we have already allowed 150,000 legal migrants to come here from outside of the EU-15 via work-permits. (me)Yes, after FAS went on tour to promote Ireland and asked, no begged 'non-nationals' to come work here.

What do you propose to do now. Tell then to f*ck off back where they came from. This now seems to be policy at the GNIB, my wife and I were told there that "no new work-permits are being issued." This despite a work-permit application in progress. So, arcade - what do you propose to do with the 150,000 legal migrants, some of whom are senior people in Irish and Global businesses. Do you think Google will be impressed when their senior people are told "We are not issuing work permits, and no there are no more inter-company transfers.."

2. The minimum-wage is not effectively enforced, due to a lack of inspectors.

Like the speed limit isn't effectively enforced through lack of cameras. The law still stands.

3. I believe that the needs of Irish people come first and that, as such, if there is a suitable candidate from among the irish unemployed for a certain job, then that job should go to him/her. To do otherwise is not only against the national-interest, but will also fuel resentment and racism.

Interesting. So now you are saying that IRISH people should come first in the selection process, there was me thinking that EU citizens had some rights and all.

Do you not think that the rights of Irish businesses to choose the best person for the job comes above some sense of "ah, give the job to one of our own". Does that extend to football and whether someones Granny visited Wexford once? How is it against the national interest to attract and employ highly skilled workers? Ireland is a mecca for Call-Centre ops, do you think this would have happened if these businesses had been forced to employ Leaving cert Spanish/French/German students - of course not! How can you resent a job being given to someone because they are better qualified than you.
It is interesting that you say from amongst the Irish unemployed...since we have a 4.7% unemployment rate and there are currently 4000 jobs advertised on monster.ie alone, how do you expect to fill these positions???

4. The global economy. So do you see Ireland just closing it's eyes to this one then?

For evidence of this, you only have to look at the situation in those countries in Europe with the highest proportions of non-EU national immigrant populations. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria. All of which have roughly 20% of the electorate voting for the Far-Right. I don't think we want that here.

Last time I checked Mary Harney was making decisions about immigration. The PDs wouldn't be Far-Right in your view then?

Why did you miss out [1] the following countries in your list of high levels of foreign population;
1. Luxembourg 37.3%
2. Switzerland 19.3%
3. Austria 9.3%
4. Germany 8.9%
5. Belgium 8.8%
Then comes France at number 6.
Also...
7. Sweden 5.4%
8. Denmark 4.8%
and then Netherlands at number 9 @ 4.1%
10. Norway 4.1%
11. United Kingdom 4.0%
12. Ireland 3.3%

Maybe you need to start posting sources...

[1]source

Stark · 17-05-2004 3:51pm

3.3% foreign population for Ireland does not sound right at all. Just by walking down a street, looking around the place in work/college etc. I notice that a far more signifigant portion of people are foreign.

Imposter · 17-05-2004 4:09pm

Originally posted by Stark
3.3% foreign population for Ireland does not sound right at all. Just by walking down a street, looking around the place in work/college etc. I notice that a far more signifigant portion of people are foreign.

I'm not trying to be smart here but that's probably because there's a higher percentage of foreigners not working or are working more unsociable hours and Irish people would tend to be working during the day. At night you'd probably think 3.3% is quite high as there'd seem to be more Irish about.

Victor, why is the Dublin convention not binding to someone seeking refuge (i'm assuming seeking refuge and applying for asylum are the same things)?

17-05-2004 4:09pm

Originally posted by MadsL
1. (you) we have already allowed 150,000 legal migrants to come here from outside of the EU-15 via work-permits. (me)Yes, after FAS went on tour to promote Ireland and asked, no begged 'non-nationals' to come work here.

What do you propose to do now. Tell then to f*ck off back where they came from. This now seems to be policy at the GNIB, my wife and I were told there that "no new work-permits are being issued." This despite a work-permit application in progress. So, arcade - what do you propose to do with the 150,000 legal migrants, some of whom are senior people in Irish and Global businesses. Do you think Google will be impressed when their senior people are told "We are not issuing work permits, and no there are no more inter-company transfers.."

They came with legal work permits,the referendum is about those who do not .
They are also recorded and obviously contributing straight away with their taxes.
One fault I do have with the asylum process is it's slowness, as those that have a valid case will be given the asylum and allowed work.
Those that are here from outside the E.U on work permits will in most cases probably not have their permit renewed, that is correct.
I doubt that, will affect skilled workers from outside the E.U employed by multinationals, those companies regularlly get waivers both for non E.U (eg U.S) citizens working with them here and for Irish people who are sent to the companies parent office or to any other country for them.

Originally posted by Redleslie
Poeple say that it's not a racist referendum but I can't imagine that many bigots/xenophobes/those who say they're not racist but merely opposed to multiculturalism, will be voting no. Even PD TDs find the referendum "distasteful" as Liz O'Donnell put it.

You are always going to get that though.
For instance, you would get people voting for a political party for several different reasons, some good reasons but some for altogether unsavoury reasons!
But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask the question ( in this case ) or hold the election.

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 4:42pm

MadSL actually the 2002 Census whos the foreign-born population at 6%. Liz O'Donnell and others are most likely just jocking for position for the PD leadership after Mary Harney resigns. Embarrassing Michael McDowell by appearing lukewarm is part of that. None of the PD TDs has actually arged If the referendum were to be defeated, seeming to have one leg in one leg out of the "Yes" side would allow them to make personal political-capital at McDowell's expense.

"Interesting. So now you are saying that IRISH people should come first in the selection process, there was me thinking that EU citizens had some rights and all."

MadSL, the point I was making is that allowing asylum-seekers to work would take away the protections inbuilt into the current work-permit system. Under it, it must first be determined that a suitable Irish citizen, or failing that an EU citizen, is available. Failing that, a work-permit may be issued. As the vast majority of work-permits were issued to persons within the new 10 EU Eastern European members, it is thought we will not need to issue as many in future as the candidate countries can provide enough labour to fill labour-shortages. Those analysts claiming that the EU needs an extra 30 million people forget that that HAS JUST HAPPENED!!!

Allowing an asylum-seeker to work removes all protections from the Irish labour-force in terms of there having to be an absence of Irish persons and then EU persons in order for the person to be employed (unless there application is already settled in their favour - which hardly ever happens as they have crossed 6 or 7 safe countries and are from safe countries almost always e.g. Romania ). I feel that Irish people should come first in terms of job allocation. That is the patriotic thing to believe in my opinion.

It is partly because such safeguards exist that I support the work-permits system. I also intend voting "Yes" in this referendum because I see only an incentive to come here and live off the State in the fact that the babies of asylum-seekers born here get automatic citizenship. Allowing ALL asylum-seekers to work is not the solution NOR is the status-quo. The solution is to repatriate illegal immigrants either to their own countries or to the first EU port of call. The new Eurodac immigrant fingerprint database should help with this in the future. The problem is that at the moment, it is only being used to place the fingerprints only of those claiming asylum. As such, it does not tell us how many people avoiding claiming asylum at all in a country en-route to Ireland. Such people are also breaking the rules of the Dublin Convention that they should only claim asylum in the first EU State of entry.

MadSL, your perspective that companies should be always allowed to employ cheap labour EVEN when that means a suitable Irish candidate being denied employment is unpatriotic I believe from an Irish perspective.

MadsL · 17-05-2004 5:03pm

I doubt that, will affect skilled workers from outside the E.U employed by multinationals, those companies regularlly get waivers both for non E.U (eg U.S) citizens working with them here and for Irish people who are sent to the companies parent office or to any other country for them.

Mary Harney has removed the right for Irish companies to apply for a waiver for the categories listed here;
http://www.entemp.ie/labour/workpermits/announcements.htm

Notice that this includes Managerial Staff in the Sales category. Also clerical and Administrative staff.

It is increasingly difficult for multinationals to get work permits for staff.

Mary Harney also has reserved the right to remove working rights for EU enlargement countries in the event that it distorts the Irish labour market.

Ironically for those that want an 'Irish only need apply' policy, the rules force employers to advertise with FÁS, who then advertise the vacancy throughout the EEA area (presumably now through 25 countries)

How do you think the US will react once reports filter through of Irelands unwillingness to allow professionals to come and work in the businesses that is desperately trying to attract using exceptionally low rates of corporate tax. Joined up thinking required here! Frankly, Ireland deserves to be excluded from the Green Card lottery system.

Stark · 17-05-2004 5:04pm

Originally posted by Imposter
I'm not trying to be smart here but that's probably because there's a higher percentage of foreigners not working or are working more unsociable hours and Irish people would tend to be working during the day. At night you'd probably think 3.3% is quite high as there'd seem to be more Irish about.

Victor, why is the Dublin convention not binding to someone seeking refuge (i'm assuming seeking refuge and applying for asylum are the same things)?

You got things backward there I think.

More foreigners working unsociable hours therefore there'd seem to be more Irish about at night?

And if there's a higher percentage of foreigners not working then I'm actually underestimating things by looking around myself at work (I work in a 9-5 job by the way). And the people working with me would definitely be fully legal.

Go onto the streets of Dublin then and you see at least 1 in 10 people walking around being foreigners by my estimates, and then add the beggers onto that.

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 5:09pm

MadSL, all we are doing with our Citizens law is bringing it into line with all the rest of Europe to sotp our system being more attractive to benefits-tourism. If that makes us racist (which it doesn't) then so too must the rest of Europe be racist.

Ryvita · 17-05-2004 5:14pm

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Voting yes in this referendum will not stop people trying to claim asylum here.

This is the point which people keep missing!

I'll be voting No and will be encouraging others to do so.

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 5:19pm

"quote:

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Voting yes in this referendum will not stop people trying to claim asylum here.

This is the point which people keep missing!

I'll be voting No and will be encouraging others to do so." (Ryvita)

Yes but voting "Yes" will deter those attracted to Ireland by the promise of citizenship for their babies, which inevitable strengthens there own asylum claims.

MadsL · 17-05-2004 5:19pm

Under it, it must first be determined that a suitable Irish citizen, or failing that an EU citizen, is available.

Actual EU citizens have equal rights. Despite whatever 'patriotic' bull you might believe.

actually the 2002 Census whos the foreign-born population at 6%

Link please. Plus comparitive data for 2002 for the rest of Europe. In the meantime I'll trust nationmaster and the CIA.

I feel that Irish people should come first in terms of job allocation. That is the patriotic thing to believe in my opinion.

Bull...the patriotic thing is what is best for the country. Go back to the monoculture of the 80's and see how successful that was. The IT explosion here was NOT built just on the efforts of only Irish workers, rather the 150,000 work-permit holders played a huge part.

MadSL, your perspective that companies should be always allowed to employ cheap labour EVEN when that means a suitable Irish candidate being denied employment is unpatriotic I believe from an Irish perspective.

No, there is no 'irish perspective' - common sense demands that the recruitment process depends on skills, experience and ability. Not on the accident of where you were born.

What's all this ****e about 'Irish denied work by foreigners' Ireland's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in Europe!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_une_rat&id=EUR

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 5:25pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0619/census.html

This link proves that my 6% figure is correct.

"Census: Population is 6% non-national

19 June 2003 19:55
Details of the 2002 Irish census have revealed that non-Irish nationals make up 5.8% of the population.

The 2002 census was the first to ask the question of nationality; previously, only place of birth was asked. "

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 5:27pm

"What's all this ****e about 'Irish denied work by foreigners' Ireland's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in Europe!" (MadSL)

I am referring to what WOULD happen if we let uncontrolled cheap labour here (i.e. allowing employers to employ asylum-seekers REGARDLESS of whether a suitable Irish candidate was available).

Ryvita · 17-05-2004 5:29pm

Originally posted by Earthman
They came with legal work permits,the referendum is about those who do not .

Em, actually it isn't about illegal immigration at all? It's about whether or not YOU are given citizenship if YOU are born here. Not your parents given citizenship just you. The parents can still be deported.

Ryvita · 17-05-2004 5:31pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"quote:

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Voting yes in this referendum will not stop people trying to claim asylum here.

This is the point which people keep missing!

I'll be voting No and will be encouraging others to do so." (Ryvita)

Yes but voting "Yes" will deter those attracted to Ireland by the promise of citizenship for their babies, which inevitable strengthens there own asylum claims.

No, I don't think it does strengthen their assylum claims.

Ryvita · 17-05-2004 5:34pm

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"What's all this ****e about 'Irish denied work by foreigners' Ireland's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in Europe!" (MadSL)

I am referring to what WOULD happen if we let uncontrolled cheap labour here (i.e. allowing employers to employ asylum-seekers REGARDLESS of whether a suitable Irish candidate was available).

What on earth has this got to do with the referendum??? What has barring a baby citizenship got to do with us letting in uncontrolled cheap labour????

arcadegame2004 · 17-05-2004 5:36pm

Ryvita, while the parents MAY be deported, in reality VERY few are. The fact of having an Irish-born child greatly strengthens the emotional impact of an asylum-seekers claim. May I add that 4,000 would-be asylum-seekers were prevented from getting off the boat/plane at our ports/airports in 2003. If that figure is added to last years 7,900 asylum-claimants, then it represents an actual increase in numbers seeking asylum-here in 2003 from 2002. As such, it is clear that that the Supreme Court Judgement of last year denying automatic citizenship to the asylum-seeker parents of Irish born children has not deterred anyone. It is the tougher Garda approach that has reduced numbers, but a future government might take a more liberal approach to this problem, if Labour's constant whining at even the pathetic 5% deportation rate last year is anything to go by. You cannot really delink this referendum from the asylum-issue. Ireland ranks joint-second with Belgium for numbers of asylum-seekers per head of population claiming asylum in an EU country. The question must be asked:why?

How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Comments