How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

ishmael whale

We’ve already had the point about the 1998 amendment only confirming the existing law could not be changed by the Oireachtas in a previous thread.

The Citizen Act was considered by the Dail on 22 March 1956 the Minister for Justice described it in these terms: “Existing law makes no provision for citizenship in the case of considerable overseas populations of the Irish race who were born, or whose immediate forefathers were born in Ireland. In Australia, Britain, Canada, the U.S.A. and elsewhere, there are large numbers of persons who emigrated from Ireland before 6th December, 1922. They are not citizens under Article 3 of the 1922 Constitution.

As regards persons born since 6th December, 1922, the provisions of Section 2 of the 1935 Act which govern their citizenship seem to us to be defective in many respects. While citizenship is provided for by birth in the Twenty-Six Counties, birth in the Six Counties is treated the same as birth in any alien land. Section 6 of this Bill (as qualified by Section 7) proposes to rectify that position.” (Note:I've truncated this text a bit to focus on the point at issue.)

The intention in the original law seems to have been to guarantee the citizenship of Irish people who had emigrated before the State came into existence, and were therefore technically not citizens, and to guarantee the citizenship of people in Northern Ireland. As we know, the intention of the 1998 amendment was to guarantee the citizenship of people in Northern Ireland. It does not seem to have been the conscious intention to extend citizenship to, for the sake of argument, people entering the country illegally.

It is simply a loophole, and it has only become apparent in recent years because its only in recent years that Ireland has had any experience of significant illegal immigration, or indeed any kind of significant immigration.

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the reason why it wasn't a problem in the preceding 50 years is for 2 reasons:

A: Ireland was a poverty-stricken country for 95% of that time. As such we were an unattractive destination for economic migrants.

B: The right to citizenship on the basis of birth didn't become well-known internationally until we enshrined it into the Constitution in 1998.

I still feel we need to vote "Yes". At least before 1998 we could have gotten rid of the loophole by a mere act of the Oidhreachtas.

BuffyBot

Its been around 50 years. It hasn't been a problem for 50 years

In fairness, Ireland of 50 years ago wouldn't have been attractive to many people. Ireland of 20 years ago would not have been as attractive as it is now. The asylum issue has only become such a large issue in the last few years.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A: Ireland was a poverty-stricken country for 95% of that time. As such we were an unattractive destination for economic migrants.

OK...but this still ties back to something I was saying here (or elsewhere) earlier. The problem that we face is that we are not applying our existing rules properly, not that we need new rules to close teh loophole.

Look at the number of what you refer to as economic migrants that we have had over the past decade. Now look at what percentage of those were abusing the pregnancy loophole.

Now tell me...which would be better - to apply the rules we have and deal with the majority, or to add a new rule to the rules we aren't applying so that we can apply it equally as badly?

B: The right to citizenship on the basis of birth didn't become well-known internationally until we enshrined it into the Constitution in 1998.

Is there anything other than supposition or hearsay to support this?

jc

Gurgle

Originally posted by bonkey:
The problem that we face is that we are not applying our existing rules properly, not that we need new rules to close the loophole.

What he said!

Originally posted by BuffyBot:
In fairness, Ireland of 50 years ago wouldn't have been attractive to many people. Ireland of 20 years ago would not have been as attractive as it is now. The asylum issue has only become such a large issue in the last few years.

Only in the last decade or two air travel has got as cheap as ferries / boats.
Ireland of 50 years ago would have been considerably better than begging on the streets or slaving away in a sweat shop for 10c a week.

Ireland is actually underpopulated in comparison to much of the world (links and stats available on request), our population is still recovering from a devastating famine 150 years ago.

What is the problem with a couple of hundred extra children per year having Irish passports ?

Aren't they more likely to come to Ireland to take advantage of free education, go on to get jobs & spend the rest of their lives paying tax here, same as the rest of us?

Why stop them ?

Are all of our rights and liberties (and lets face it we have it as good here as anywhere on earth, better than most) just for the pure bloods ?

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the existing rules are that the Irish-born children of asylum-seekers get Irish citizenship automatically. The Chen case seems today to mean that because they get Irish citizenship, their parents have residency rights through the EU. Now I agree that even if we hadn't originally voted "Yes" in 1998, this problem could still have been caused by the fact that we already allowed automatic citizenship in our common-law (as opposed to our Constitution). However, if that had happened, at least we could hgave rectified the situation by a mere act of the Irish Parliament (the Houses of the Oidhreachtas).

But because we voted "Yes" in 1998 (for perfectly well-intentioned reasons which had NOTHING to do with giving asylum-seekers' children Irish citizenship), we unwittingly opened up a Pandora's box which has gotten us where we are today. It is obvious to most people that one of the reasons for Ireland ranking joint-second with Belgium in the EU-league of numbers of asylum-seekers per head of population must be our citizenship laws. Our recent rapid economic growth must also be a factor. And if I am wrong about this and about my claim that only the GFA referendum made our citizenship rules internationally well-known, then why did mass-migration of 60,000 asylum seekers only start after the referendum?

11,000 asylum-seekers are the parents of Irish-born children btw,

arcadegame2004

Gurgle, I wouldn't call 1893 (last years number of pregnant women who claimed asylum here) as "a couple of hundred". And even that doesn't included cases like Chens.

The bigger problem is the fact that:

Ireland can now be used as a back-door to acquire residency rights throughout the whole EU, for the parents. The ECJ ruling yesterday said that the babies mother and the mother's husband also had the freedom of movement and residency rights of their EU citizen child, under the principle of "family-unity". So the 11,000 asylum-seekers with Irish-born children will be able to use this to challenge their deportations in the courts and the same applies to future migrants. The cost of housing all these people is a big drain on the Exchequer.

This probably overthrows the 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the non-national parents of Irish-born children not having the automatic rights to residency in Ireland. We must vote "Yes" to close this Pandora's box whererby an Irish-born baby gives his/her non-national parents the right to reside forever in ireland living of the Irish taxpayer.

Gurgle

1893 pregnant women - how many would have had their babies here if the existing asylum legislation was processed efficiently ?

Even if the answer is all of them, whats 2000 extra citizens for the EU ?
I can't find the total EU population in a hurry but I think its at least 200 million.

Thats an increase of 0.0001%

Originally posted by arcadegame2004:
The cost of housing all these people is a big drain on the Exchequer.

The housing costs is the great white elephant that we're getting told about from all directions.

There would be no housing costs if they were allowed to work.
Successful applicants should be employed and paying tax within a few weeks of arrival. Unsuccessful applicants should be gone.

We do not have an overpopulation problem in the EU, least of all in Ireland.

We have an administrative problem, asylum applicants are given years to settle in and get used to living on handouts. In the space of 3 years, especially if they have nothing else to do (eg. go to work), an average couple of breeding age (Irish as much as foreign) are pretty likely to have a baby.
Sex is the age old answer to boredom.ww)

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
However, if that had happened, at least we could hgave rectified the situation by a mere act of the Irish Parliament (the Houses of the Oidhreachtas).

Personally, I'd prefer such a decision to be made by referendum, but maybe thats because the Swiss are corrupting my thinking on such issues

we unwittingly opened up a Pandora's box which has gotten us where we are today.

But I'm not convinced thats true. I have seen nothing other than an insistence that it is so that the 1998 referendum sparked off anything. I personally think it was our rise to afluence which has sparked off what people see as the problem.

It is obvious to most people that one of the reasons for Ireland ranking joint-second with Belgium in the EU-league of numbers of asylum-seekers per head of population must be our citizenship laws.

But the only reason its obvious is because people keep saying that it is obvious.

I fail to see how the under-developed nations of the world have access to such good lawyers and communication systems that within a short space of time they could determine the existence of this loophole and spread it so widely that the problem suddenly arose....and yet be so hopeless that prior to 1998, they couldn't spot the same loophole in the same country

Which means to me that it is far from obvious that it is our citizenship laws which are the problem. Our affluence coupled with our inability (or unwillingness) to actually apply our existant laws is a far more likely culprit which is exacerbated to an unknown degree by the whole citizenship issue.

AS I've pointed out...teh citizenship issue has realistically existed for over 50 years. The affluence has existed for about the same time that the so-called "economic migrant problem" has existed. So why is it obvious that the 1998 referendum is the culprit?

then why did mass-migration of 60,000 asylum seekers only start after the referendum?

11,000 asylum-seekers are the parents of Irish-born children btw,

So, 60,000 people came here since 1998, of which 49000 of which were trying to abuse a loophole that they're not applicable for? If we're talking "obvious" here there is something obviously wrong with that logic.

Lets look a bit closer. Here's the figures I found from CORI...so if you have a better source, let me know and I'll do some quick analysis on them...

1992 39
1993 91
1994 362
1995 424
1996 1,179
1997 3,883
1998 4,626
1999 7,724
2000 10,938
2001 10,325
2002 11,634
2003 7,900 (estimated)

Now, as a mathematician, I would say that a very noticeable upwards trend started in 1994 - a whole four years before the referendum - and flattened off somewhere around 2,000, and indeed has started a decline again (although that may be incorrect and/or a statistical blip for 2003).

(I'd also say that, as a mathematician, unless the figures for 2003 are out by a factor of 100%, its more like 53,000 asylum seekers. And I would quibble over 7,000 because its significantly over 50% of our "busiest" year on record)

Now, to me, that says that nothing started in 1998, and that the trends in fact correspond far more closely to the real emergence of the Celtic Tiger phenomenon and started slowing, oooh, almost directly when the dot-bomb occurred and the Celtic Tiger phenomenon stopped being something referred to the world over as teh Irish economy joined the rest of the developed world in going comparatively down the toilet.

Also, how many of those 11,000 asylum-seekers you refer to were pregnant (or had children) prior to 1998? How many were pregnant on arrival to the country? How many became pregnant (or became aware of pregnancy) after arrival.

And in that last group, how can we determine those that came here for genuine asylum reasons and then chose to avail of every opportuntity to make sure they didn't get sent home? How many got pregnant because they wanted kids, and weren't trying to abuse anything? How many got pregnant accidentally?

All of these points will affect the significance of the 11,000 number, although even if they didn't it would still hint that no more than 1 in 5 of our applicants actually are abusing the system in this way. Of the remaining 4 in every 5, how many are not entitled to asylum by our existing laws, and what is being done about it? If nothing, then what possible hope do we have to believe that resolving the citizenship question by saying "no, you're not Irish" will actually do anything to allevaite the problem.

If there is no reason to believe it will alleviate the problem, then billing it as a solution - or even a partial solution - to the 350 million cost that many complain about is little more than misdirection.

Simplistic figures lead to simplistic answers. They rarely lead to solutions. Closer analysis tends to show that the picture is far from as clear-cut as is being suggested. I'm not saying that people should vote in favour or against the referendum.

What I'm saying is that I am utterly unconvinced by the arguments being put forward as to why this change is in any way critical, necessary, or a solution to a problem which I don't believe it is related to.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, another reason to vote "Yes" is to rectify the undemocratic way in which the citizenship-loophole is being used to make Ireland a backdoor to the rest of the EU. I mean the Chen case. Do you think it is right that anyone who gives birth in Ireland can get residency in all 24 other EU states? You seemed concerned about this before.

Victor

Originally posted by AP
Its judges tend to follow the advocate general's opinion in about 80 percent of cases.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I still feel that the ECJ preliminary judgement (and 90% of those judgements are the final judgement too)

Liar.

arcadegame2004

Victor who is "AP"? Is AP a poster or are you quoting a newspaper? On RTE radio 1 I heard it mentioned that in "80 or 90%" of cases the ECJ follows the preliminary ruling of the Advocate-General. So its extremely likely it will again. How does saying that make me a "liar"?

bobbyjoe

Tightening a loophole is quite an understatement for this change we are reversing a law thats been there since 1921.
Wanna change the constitution over one case seems crazy.

Have a read of this arcadegame

http://www.iccl.ie/constitution/gen/referendum_faq04.pdf

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We must vote "Yes" to close this Pandora's box whererby an Irish-born baby gives his/her non-national parents the right to reside forever in ireland living of the Irish taxpayer.

What "Pandora's box"?

Your claimed "the right to reside forever in ireland living of the Irish taxpayer" doesn't exist and and I don't think anyone else is claiming it.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Victor who is "AP"?

The Associated Press news agency, whose article Bonkey quoted.

Originally posted by bonkey
Personally, I'd prefer such a decision to be made by referendum, but maybe thats because the Swiss are corrupting my thinking on such issues

Probably. There is of course a huge difference between referendums here and in Switzerland. In Switzerland they are a means of democracy, here they are a means of getting us to vote until we give the "right" answer.

1992 39
1993 91
1994 362
1995 424
1996 1,179
1997 3,883
1998 4,626

There may have been a factor insofar as there was a nasty habit of asylum-seekers just being chucked back on the plane (quite separate from "refused permission to land") in the 1980s so as to "not upset Aeroflot".

Originally posted by bonkey
Now, as a mathematician, I would say that a very noticeable upwards trend started in 1994

This may be partly caused by events in the Balkans and other events in Eastern Europe.

Originally posted by bonkey
All of these points will affect the significance of the 11,000 number, although even if they didn't it would still hint that no more than 1 in 5 of our applicants actually are abusing the system in this way.

Of course this would relate to ~5,500 babies.

Wolfie

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

I will vote "Yes" and urge others to do likewise to stop the abuses of our SW system, especially

You still vote lads? I packed all that nonsense in after the second Nice treaty referendum. The thin veneer of democracy chipped away slightly for me after that.

[fReeDom of SpEEch aNd all tHat ****e!]

arcadegame2004

bobbyjoe I have just read it and my arguments still hold. Ireland was not an attractive destination for economic-migrants prior to the late 1990's when Ireland became a wealthy state. Also, the worldwide media attention afforded to the GFA (which was very substantial) catapulted the citizenship for births constitutional amendment of 1998 into the public-eye. May I add that although citizenship on the basis solely of birth was part of Irish "common law" as early as 1921, it WAS NOT written into the Irish Constitution until 1998. So there is still an important point that it was previously simpler to rectify the loophole by simply passing a parliamentary vote whereas now it cannot be done without a referendum. I will still vote "Yes". I am reasonably confident that this referendum will pass, provided the Government doesn't become too complacent. The Chen case will have helped the arguments from the "Yes" side. I think people generally are sick and tired of the way our citizenship laws are being used to gain residency for the parents and a free house etc. There are more worthwhile things to spend our money on than people who could easier claim asylum in the first EU country they enter. The Dublin Convention makes it clear that the first EU country of entry of these people is legally responsible for them in respect of the asylum-issue. Why should we waste money processing their claims and accommodating them when its legally the responsibility of others? ANd where is the fairness in crowding Irish people out of the housing market by spending public money buying up properties to house asylum-seekers? It reduces the supply of housing available to the rest of us and in the process contributes to the upward movement in house-prices.

bobbyjoe

Don't think I can change you mind.
Your very tough!
Whats wrong with a bit of humanity, helping out fellow man etc
Guess its too much to ask, hide behind cold rules.

When can man live as one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
May I add that although citizenship on the basis solely of birth was part of Irish "common law" as early as 1921,

Ah, I see you have added law to your non-qualifications. There is a huge difference between common law and statute law. I suggest you look them up.*

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I think people generally are sick and tired of the way our citizenship laws are being used to gain residency for the parents and a free house etc.

Residence is not equal to "free house etc."

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
There are more worthwhile things to spend our money on than people

Really?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
who could easier claim asylum in the first EU country they enter. The Dublin Convention makes it clear that the first EU country of entry of these people is legally responsible for them in respect of the asylum-issue. Why should we waste money processing their claims and accommodating them when its legally the responsibility of others?

Then why don't we use the Dublin Convention? Would it be because we have a lazy government?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
ANd where is the fairness in crowding Irish people out of the housing market by spending public money buying up properties to house asylum-seekers?

I'm sorry people are being crowded out by their parents who are reluctant to sell their underoccupied 3/4 bed and their own desire to have their own underoccupied 3/4 bed.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It reduces the supply of housing available

More correctly it uses up some of the available stock. The problems with housing has little to do with refugees and more due to demographics and lack of supply.

* www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/courts/court_terms/court_terms.shtml

The laws enacted by legislation.

www.lawyerlocator.co.uk/glossary.php3

Judge-made law and precedent, as opposed to statutory law. Common law systems (as in the UK, Ireland, the United States, and Commonwealth Countries) are distinguished from the civil law systems found in Continental Europe and much of the rest of the world. In terms of legal practice, the expression is used in distinction to equity and refers in particular to contract disputes, personal injury claims and the like.

arcadegame2004

"Whats wrong with a bit of humanity, helping out fellow man etc
Guess its too much to ask, hide behind cold rules." (bobbyjoe)

Bobbyjoe, we're not locking anyone out of the West. The asylum-seekers arrived in the West long before they arrived here. We are only a small country and with FAR fewer taxpayers compared to similarly wealthy countries like France our Government obviously has far fewer tax-revenues available to them to apportion. I don't want the cake getting even smaller. We have our own problems to deal with without importing more.

Ireland has already "helped out fellow man" to a great extent by issuing 150,000 work-permits to non-EU nationals. Ultimately it is fair-trade that will make the greatest difference to the problems in the Third World, not a brain drain.

arcadegame2004

"Then why don't we use the Dublin Convention? Would it be because we have a lazy government?" (Victor)

The asylum-seekers are tearing up their travel documents and this is one of the key problems in determining their country of origin and countries of transit. It is almost an admission that they are not actually refugees in the commonly understand sense of the word ,i.e. fleeing persecution, war or famine.

bobbyjoe

Sorry but this stuff about cake and the size of it is crap.
This is a vastly rich country, all this small Ireland we don't have the rescources is bull.
Its the distribution of wealth thats the problem.

If you want to get angry and blame someone try one of these:

hundreds of millions are being wasted by the government.
Horsebreeders are laughing their asses off at us.
The rich head off to their tax havens

And who gets blamed for the problems? the poor little guy just off the boat trying to find a better life for himself.



At the end of the day two children born in the same ward on the same day, will have different legal and constitutional rights. I don't like the sound of that.
In a republic everyone is equal aren't they?


Agree about your point about Fair Trade but wouldn't hold my breath for that.

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe yet another bleeding-heart argument that I have come to expect from the "No" side. Look. These people are all getting here via 5 or 6 different Western EU states. They can claim asylum in one of those. The law is the law and what you seem to be advocating is an open-door policy of unlimited immigration into Ireland. That is unsustainable and NO other country in Europe allows it. There has to be limits but effectively at the moment there isn't. ANYONE can come here and get a free house paid for by you and me in our taxes. This is unacceptable. If we allow all asylum-seekers to stay then more will be encouraged and the cost to the taxpayer will explode. I will not be guilt-tripped by bleeding-heart arguments. These people are in NO danger when they decide to cross into Ireland from NI or when they get on the ferry in Calais. They are CHOOSING to not apply for asylum in France or the UK. There is no life-or-death reason why they must get to Ireland. You know it. I know it. I am extremely fed up of the perpetual moaning of the Irish Left. The demonise anyone who even suggests restricting immigration as some kind of Nazi. This is ludicrous. The Irish people want a system that is fair to everyone. Yes fair to the asylum-seeker, but also fair TO US. We cannot be expected to shoulder the economic burden of unlimited immigration into our country and it is totally unreasonable to expect us to do so.

Effectively, hardly any of these asylum-seekers actually get deported, largely because of cumbersome bureaucracy that allows asylum-seekers to appeal the verdicts on their claims umpteen times. The Chen case has given their ambulance-chasing solicitors yet more to play with. Now they will be able to argue that because Mrs.Chen's right to residency in the EU was granted on the basis that her daughter was born in Ireland, that it is illegal to deport the asylum-seeking parents of Irish-born children. I sympathise with the Third World but unless we change our Constitution to end the loophole, we will be faced with a huge influx of residency and citizenship-tourists. This is simply a fact. And we cannot be expected to tolerate a situation whereby any one of the 700 million women in China can legally gain residency in Ireland forever by giving birth here!!!! I am sorry but you ask too much.

All we are doing is bringing our citizenship law into line with EVERY other state in Europe. If that makes Ireland racist, then that means that every country in Europe is racist too. Do you really believe that to be the case? I don't.

arcadegame2004

Oh and Bobbyjoe, the fact that our Government has wasted money in other ways does not justify us doing it again.

cdebru

not sure what way im voting
but at the moment we have the ridiculous situation that
the non national parent of an irish born baby will not be allowed to stay here
but they will have to be allowed to stay in any other eu country
something will have to be done because one that is simply not fair on other eu countries we wont let them stay but they have too
two if that system stays our maternity hospitals which aren,t great at the best of times are goingto be overwhelmed
but i hate to agree with arcadegame on anything
it make s me feel creepy

ishmael whale

I want to present one fact to the debate, one simple irrefutable fact.

I am pretty much convinced that a yes vote in the referendum is the right course of action, largely because I think its just plain daft that someone can enter the country illegally and claim citizenship for their children. I don't think the quantities of people reaching our shores to avail of this loophole at present are such that it is beyond our abilities to cope, although neither am I in denial that such people exist. I don't see the necessity to wait for a problem to become unmanageable before we take action. There is a loophole, we didn't intend it to be there, no-one else in our immediate vicinty does it, we should close it.

However, this is not the simple irrefutable fact I want to present. Its not a fact at all, its simply what I regard as a reasonable conclusion based on what we know. We might like to have more information about this or that, but making decisions in the absence of full information is a part of the human condition.

As a subsidiary point, I am aware that the Masters of the maternity hospitals have expressed concern that enough women are arriving late in pregnancy to place a strain on their services, nothwithstanding the fact that the number of such births is a small percentage of total births. I know the Masters are not advocating any particular solution, but I'm equally aware that the issue they have publicly raised in the media relating to some women arriving from abroad in labour where the hospital has no medical history cannot be dealt with by providing additional resources.

However, while it is a fact the Masters have raised this as an issue, this is also not the simple irrefutable fact I want to present.

The simple irrefutable fact I want to present is that most times after reading posts by Arcadegame2004 I feel like voting no.

arcadegame2004

Actually cdebru, the Chen ruling yesterday may allow all asylum-seeker parent's of Irish-born children to stay here aswell! No mention was made in the ruling of whether Mrs.Chen could have chosen to live here or not. The basis upon which Mrs.Chen herself and even her spouse were given residency rights by the ECJ was the fact that their child was born in Ireland and thus is both an Irish and EU citizen. Already many of the 11,000 asylum-seekers who are parents to Irish-born children are planning to use the Chen ruling to argue that they cannot be legally deported.

All the more reason to vote "Yes". This Pandoras box was opened when we agreed to automatic unconditional citizenship based solely on birth. The amendment adding the proviso that one of the parents must be born on the island of Ireland will bring Irish citizenship laws back into the realms of sanity and into line with EVERY other EU state's citizenship laws. This citizenship and residency tourism is putting untold pressure on our hospitals and a scandalous amount of money is being spent on buying up houses for asylum-seekers. These peopel are almost all bogus because they A: Come from safe countries and B:All arrive in Ireland via 5 or 6 other EU states, in violation of the Dublin Convention requiring them to claim asylum only in the first EU state of entry. We must vote "Yes" to end this disparity between Irish citizenship law and that of the rest of the EU, which is making Ireland disproportionately more attractive to citizenship/residency tourists than almost any other EU state.

Gurgle

arcadegame2004, I give up.

You appear to be a dedicated xenophobe.

You haven't made a point in days. The points you did make have SFA to do with the referendum. Every time anyone else states a reason to vote no, you ignore it and go back to banging on about 350 million euro and 11,000 people.

I believe its our moral duty as an educated, enlightened and rich nation to do all we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves. This referendum, if passed will go a long way to prevent that.
There are controls in place to prevent Ireland from being swamped by 2 billion hungry poor people.

Sherlock

"There are controls in place to prevent Ireland from being swamped by 2 billion hungry poor people."


And these controls are what exactly?. Not that I'm expecting 2 billion to turn up here looking to be looked after but a country of 4 million can only generate enough money to look after a finite number of people.We've never colonised any country, we've never invaded any country, we don't have the baggage of countries like Britain who have large numbers of immigrants from former colonies.

Sure loads of Irish people immigrated for work in the past but it was to much bigger countries who were looking for workers.How many Irish people were given accomodation and social welfare on landing in the US?. How many were booted out for being illegal as soon as they were discovered?.

Personally I think I'd be in favour of letting asylum seekers/economic migrants work while their applications are being processed but not pay any social welfare.That might make Ireland a less attractive destination.Only thing about that is I'm not too comfortable being on the side of the PDs and IBEC who want a large labour pool, thus keeping down wages.

whosurpaddy

ill be voting yes. and i have to say by and large i agree with a lot of what arcade game is saying. he may go about his points in the wrong way but the basic principle is still valid. and the people calling him a racist need to cop on. is that really the jist of your agruement?

the other side of the point ishmael whale made is that everytime someone calls people like arcade game a racist for having the audacity to question this law, they make more people vote yes. i was leaning towards voting yes anyway but i wont pander to the racism card and it sickens me to see it played needlessly so often.

Gurgle

Originally posted by Sherlock:
Personally I think I'd be in favour of letting asylum seekers/economic migrants work while their applications are being processed but not pay any social welfare

I agree. It actually is that simple.

but a country of 4 million can only generate enough money to look after a finite number of people

My point is that these people aren't for the most part coming here to be looked after, they want the chance to look after themselves.

Only thing about that is I'm not too comfortable being on the side of the PDs and IBEC who want a large labour pool, thus keeping down wages.

I'm not an economist, I don't know how it works but wouldn't extra working people in the country be a good thing ?