How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

bobbyjoe

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 ?

Definitly would be.
Also dosen't the health system practicaly run on non-national labour at the moment.
The US economy is run on immigration.

It comes down to wether you believe that "floods" of people are going to come here to have babies and seek citizenship. This scare story has been going on for years and hasn't happened.

Seems like some are uncomfortable seeing others with dark skin and strange languages on the street.


Any yes voters care to comment on this?
At the end of the day two children born in the same ward on the same day, will have different legal and constitutional rights.
In a republic everyone is equal aren't they?

bonkey

Originally posted by 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.

I wasn't concerned - I was interested in hearing what people thought

Let me ask you this - do you think it is right that someone born in Ireland with only an Irish grandmother who died 50 years ago should get residency in all 24 other EU states?

Thats what you're saying is a fair solution? That two people from almost-identical situations can be treated differently because one can produce a piece of paper that shows that an Irish person emigrated two generations ago, married abroad, lived abroad, raised a family abroad, who then lived abroad and had a kid in Ireland.

This is equitable? This is fair? Bollox it is. This is saying "its alright as long as things are weighted in our favour".

But going back to the case in point....and actually answering your question, rather than dodging it as you're no doubt thinking I'm doing....

I do not think the current system is particularly good. However, I do not think that the proposed change is any better. In fact, I think its worse by a large margin.

And that, for me, is the crux. Almost everyone who I've heard argue for changing the system has done so on the basis that the current system is flawed, and that we should therefore vote for a change. I disagree. We should vote for a change when a better system is offered, and I don't agree that one has.

Originally posted by Victor
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.

[off-topic, I know]

Thats because the Swiss have only ever had one referendum on joining the EU, one referendum on abolishing military service, one referencum on abolishing the military, one referendum on joining the UN, etc?

Methinks you haven't studied Swiss referenda in quite enough detail

The Swiss just don't have a problem saying no, no, no, and no again. Nor do they appear to have any difficulty switching party allegience when their ruling parties don't drop an issue that the public has clearly spoken its mind on.

jc

Ryvita

I think this whole referrendum is run on scare tactics.

People on this post are talking about illegal immigration and abuse of social welfare. This referrendum isn't about that. It's about whether or not a child born here is Irish or not.

If you are unhappy about immigration then look at the current laws in place? Are they being put in force?

People are throwing around a figure of 350 mil? What is the breakdown of this figure what was it actually spent on? - real facts please! None of the speculation.

This idea that this "loophole" leaves us open to abuse from these "illegal immigrants" who are "getting their girlfriends pregnant" to get a foot in the door here and it going to cost us loads of money? These are human beings for gods sake. You paint them like they are just out to get us. I'm sorry but I find this argument is racist!

Also, I really don't think the "illegal immigrants" your so worried about are causing a big problem in Ireland? How has it hurt us? Why are we going after the marginalised people in the world?

Why don't we have refferendums on stuff that really needs to be clarified in our constitution like Neutrality for example. Why are we havinga referendum for the government to beef up their election prospects? What ever you believe, you must agree that that at least is a bit suspect.

BuffyBot

Let me ask you this - do you think it is right that someone born in Ireland with only an Irish grandmother who died 50 years ago should get residency in all 24 other EU states?

Just my comments on this (which I think I posted before).

Most of the people claiming such citizenship don't come and reside here. For the most part they use it to obtain an Irish passport (I admit this is based on the people I know who have done it).

Ryvita

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Just my comments on this (which I think I posted before).

Most of the people claiming such citizenship don't come and reside here. For the most part they use it to obtain an Irish passport (I admit this is based on the people I know who have done it).

How many people have you met who do this? How well do you know them?

BuffyBot

How many people have you met who do this? How well do you know them?

A few actually

Cork

Originally posted by Ryvita
was it actually spent on? - real facts please! None of the speculation.

This idea that this "loophole" leaves us open to abuse from these "illegal immigrants" who are "getting their girlfriends pregnant" to get a foot in the door here and it going to cost us loads of money? These are human beings for gods sake. You paint them like they are just out to get us. I'm sorry but I find this argument is racist!

By adopting similar rules to our EU neighbours - We are only stopping potential abuses of citizenship rules.

The ECJ case shows that the current rules are indeed open to abuse.

By calling this referendum racist is a slur upon all countries in the EU - as they don't give automatic citizenship.

The average period of parental residency throughout the EU is five years. The citizenship referendum proposes only three.

If this were a loophole in our tax laws - Should it not be blocked?

The ECJ ruling shows that there is a loophole in our citizenship rules - it would be wrong to leave it open so that it could be open to abuse.

arcadegame2004

"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 ?"

Depends. Irish people have to come first as far as I am concerned when it comes to first refusal over a job. We have a perfectly legal route for non-EU nationals who want to come here if they want to work. Its call Work-permits. Let them apply for one. That is the law. Irish an Irish-person is punished for breaking the law, then neither should non-nationals get away with it.

Anyway, we can meet our skills-shortages from labour from the Eastern EU and from the millions of unemployed in Germany etc. We have already granted 150,000 non-EU-national work-permits. THis does NOT smack of a racist country. It is just that there has to be limits. We don't want to price Irish people out of jobs where a skills-shortage does not exist. If skills-shortages do exist I would accept the work-permit for non-EU nationals being issued though, provided no suitable Irish or Eu candidate was available (indeed such protections fro the Irish labour-force are part of the work-permits legislation).

Asylum-seekers that come here are not all necessarily skilled - contrary to what some in this country would have you believe. And the cost of paying for them to be accommodate, together with the massive strain non-EU nationals put on our maternity-wards, clearly constitutes a burden on the state. THe latter would not end if we allowed asylum-seekers to work. The temptation to grab citizenship for their children and thus possibly prevent their deportation (the Chen case ruling said that the Chen mother AND father could not be deported because of "family unity" reasons) would just be too great. And we don't want Irish people being priced out of work where skills-shortgages do not exist, by cheap labour.

I will put Irish people's needs first. That is the patriotic thing to do. And I will reject comparisons between Irish people fleeing famine, and those who come here from Ukraine, Romania, and Nigeria - all of which are democracies at peace and enduring no famine. Does any EU country have an obligation to process their asylum-claim? Answer is YES. But only the first EU state they enter. I cannot condone the collossal waste of taxpyers money to the tune of 340 million euro in 2002 (and it must have risen since) to people from safe countries who exploit a system intended to protect those fleeing ear, famine or persecution. These people are trying to gain financial gain by lying to the State. I demand the implementation of the law.

THe legal status-quo is as follows:

A: ALL children born to asylum-seekers in the island of Ireland receive Irish citizenship, regardless of the origina of their parents.

B: The part of the Chen ruling stating that the parents of Catherine Chen must be given EU residency rights aswell appear to contradict and possibly OVERTURN the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that the parents can be deported.

I find this unacceptable! We have to have some restrictions. We are now in serious danger if we vote "No" of returning to the ridiculous situation before 2003 where asylum-seekers who are the parents of children born in Ireland automatically qualify for permanent residency here. That is my interpretation of what continuing our current citizenship law would mean.

The Chen ruling clearly says that the parents of an EU citizen cannot be deported. For this reason, the only way to prevent unsustainable cost to the taxpyer and health-service in the form of renewed and larger-scale citizenship-and residency-tourism is to vote "Yes" on June 11th. To do otherwise is to say that ANYONE in unlimited numbers, and regardless of the cost to the State, can come to Ireland and live here permanently, and raise a family, the accommodation of which will be at the taxpayer's expense. I cannot accept such a free for all. It would cost the taxpayer even more of a collossal waste of money - thrown at literally any non-EU national that comes here - no matter how many come.

No other EU state or European country allows such a free-for-all. They understand that the first duty of a State are to its own nationals. They undetstand that the patriotic duty is to ensure that their own unemployed get first refusal of jobs before foreigners are allowed to come in on work-permits to claim it. There is a saying that "Charity begins at home" and I firmly believe in the veracity of this saying. It doesn't take genious to work out how crime lords could bring over their pregnant girlfriends and thererby gain residency throughout the EU, especially after the Chen case.

We must therefore remove the basis for possible future Chen cases - by voting "Yes" to deny automatic citizenship to the babies of asylum seekers where those babies are born here. The Irish taxpayer deserves to have their money used on Irish people first and foremost. We should contribute in our aid budget to the Third World yes - and we do. But simply going up and down the country buying up available housing for asylum-seekers and thereby pushing house prices even further out of the reach of young people and couples seems indefensible to me. If we vote"Yes" we will spare the Irish taxpyer further citizenship and residency-tourism. And we owe it to our country to ensure that if we can stop it by democratic means, that we not allow our money to be wasted in this way. 340 million euro is an unacceptable waste of money on asylum-seekers. And that was in 2002. These people had EVERY opportunity to claim asylum in the other EU states they passed through prior to arrival in our State. That makes them the responsibility of the first EU country they entered. These people arrived in the West LONG before they got here. The Dublin Convention 1981 states that the asylum seeker must clai masylum in the first EU state of entry ONLY. There are many stories of people claimign asylum on both sides of the border and collecting SW on both sides. This is clearly an abuse. The fact that some of our own people abuse the SW system does not justify allowing more to do so.

The asylum-issue is directly relebant to this citizenship referendum is spite of hairsplitting attempts by the "No" side to deny the obvious links. The prize of Irish citizenship for the child (and after Chen, residency in the EU - I judge didn't say that Ireland can deny residency to their parents ) in evitable draws many thousands to seek to claim asylum here. We are grossly irresponsible if we continue to allow our precious resources to be wasted on any TOm, Dick or Harry who travels to Ireland and expects and gets a free house etc paid for by US.

That is why we must vote "Yes". No other country in Europe has citizenship laws as lenient as ours. Are they all racist? Come on!

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

Hang on. Boat arrives from Holyhead - this would suggest they have not just arrived from Germany.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

And we also have much fewer refugees (albeit high per capita).

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I sympathise with the Third World....... And we cannot be expected to tolerate a situation whereby any one of the 700 million women in China

(a) only perhaps only 500m women in China* (b) China is considered part of the "second" world.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Actually cdebru, the Chen ruling yesterday may allow all asylum-seeker parent's of Irish-born children to stay here aswell!

Not necessarily. The main plank of the decision was that the UK was discriminating in contravention of EU rules, as it would be treating British an EU citizens differently. In such a case, Ireland wouldn't be.

Originally posted by 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.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
a scandalous amount of money is being spent on buying up houses for asylum-seekers.

This isn't as much of a problem as you make it out to be as (a) that money gets recycled in the construction industry (b) housing is appreciating in value.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
This Pandoras box was opened when we agreed to automatic unconditional citizenship based solely on birth.

... in 1921!

Originally posted by Cork
If this were a loophole in our tax laws - Should it not be blocked?

Artisits exemption. Horse stud fees. Work taxed higher than capital gains ... need I continue? There are better things this governments to be exercising its mind on.

* http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html 583m over the age of 15

cdebru

And I will reject comparisons between Irish people fleeing famine, and those who come here from Ukraine, Romania, and Nigeria - all of which are democracies at peace and enduring no famine. Does any EU country have an obligation to process their asylum-claim?

right so we only accept refugees if there is a famine or war
so by that logic jews had no reason to flee germany untill 1939 as it was a "democracy" was not at war nor suffering from famine
i wonder why they were all trying to leave i mean what was their problem

now as far as i know nigeria has a major problem with regional governments in the north of the country enforcing islamic law on non muslims
romania has a problem with discrimation of ethnic minorities including the gypsies
ukraine im not too sure about but if i had the choice of living near chernobyl in a former soviet republic or coming to ireland i know what i would choose
the same as many people chose in this country not just during the famine
but basically in every decade since then up to the nineties

arcadegame2004

"right so we only accept refugees if there is a famine or war
so by that logic jews had no reason to flee germany untill 1939 as it was a "democracy" was not at war nor suffering from famine
i wonder why they were all trying to leave i mean what was their problem" (cdebru)

Dont be ridiculous. Of course I would have let Jews in. They WERE fleeing persecution. My use of the word "Famine" was intended to counter the often repeated argument of the Irish Left that there is some kind of direct comparison between Irish people leaving this country in the Famine period and non-EU nationals coming here today.

I have repeatedly stated that I consider as a refugee only those fleeing state-persecution, famine or war.

"now as far as i know nigeria has a major problem with regional governments in the north of the country enforcing islamic law on non muslims
romania has a problem with discrimation of ethnic minorities including the gypsies" (cdebru)

As I have said before, Romanians and Nigerians and everyone else wanted asylum in the EU should claim asylum in the FIRST EU country of entry. But instead so many come here. That is the Dublin Convention 1981. And anyway, why doesn't a woman facing possible genital-mutilation in the Sharia Muslim states of Norther Nigeria just go to the Southern Christian Nigerian states or to a neighbouring African state? it is mythology that they need to come to Ireland or even to the EU to escape this. ANd anyway, NONE of the stoning-to-death sentences faced by women in the Muslim Sharia states have gone ahead, because President Obasanjo of Nigeria has vetoed them. ANd how do you know that most of the Nigerians in this country are Muslim? President Obasanjo reportedly told Bertie Ahern that most were from Southern Nigeria.

On the issue of Romania gypsies, they can simply apply for asylum in the first EU state of entry. Which again is extremely unlike to be Ireland. And many of the Romanian asylum-seekers are not even Roma. Did you hear in the news yesterday about the Romanian crime-gang that were involved in a fake-ATM scams defrauding Irish people out of their hard-earned cash. Just goes to show how crimelords are able to abuse the asylum laws to get a foothold in Ireland.

On Ukraine, 90% of the fallout from Chernobyl was blown into neighbouring Belarus. Ukraine had an extraordinarily lucky escape. Yes, there are many in Ukraine affected by Chernobyl, but the overwhelming majority do not. And again, even if this were true, I say again: claim asylum in the first EU state.

cdebru

the old not in my backyard syndrom
of the fact that your keen on the dublin convention is that it is nearly impossible to get to ireland without being in another eu country first
so let them sort it out
so you only want the good side of being fortunate to live in a prosperous country
let the rest of the eu sort out the immigration asylum issue
irish people did not just flee persecution and famine
since the foundation of this state people left who were purely economic refugees
do you have relations in america australia the uk
do you think they should be deported
what about their children
should they be sent back to ireland
what is it about 40 million irish americans
about 5 million in the uk
another 5 in australia
lets say atleast 55 million around the world
lets just hope they all dont get sent back here
i mean either they are immigrants or the children grand children of immigrants etc

cdebru

another thing gypsies are persecuted in most east european countries suggesting that a gypsie should seek asylum in let say the czech republic would be pretty much the same as asking why the jews did not go to fascist italy as it was closer to them

arcadegame2004

cdebru, you are making sweeping-generalisations there. The vast majority of the ancestors of the Irish-Americans emigratef legally to the US. Same with migrants to the UK. The Ireland Act 1949 conferred British-citizenship on all Irish citizens. Yes I have an American cousin and British cousins. They have nothing to do with the asylum system.

Our ancestors going to these countries lived in appalling conditions in the 19th century whereas asylum-seekers coming here get free housers paid for bny the taxpayer, putting houses further out of the reach of Irish people. The current system means that terrorists and criminal gangs can get a foothold in Europe by bringing over their pregnant girlfriends. 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival last year, and this is putting terrible pressure on our Health-Service. The Masters of the Rotunda have reportedly a sudden surge in non-national births in the last month. Non-nationals are just 6% of our population but account for 25% of the births. I find this very suspicious.

The law is the law. A genuine refugee should be happy rto have reached the safety of Italy, Spain, or Germany. They prove that they are not genuine refugees by crossing to many other EU states and claiming asylum there in defiance of the Dublin Convention. You seem to be arguing in favour of us rewarded defiance of this law cdebru. If an Irish person breaks the law, they are punished. Why should non-nationals get away with it?

Again you foolishly draw comparions between ireland as a destination of economic-migrants with the massively bigger economies of the UK and the US. They have a vast tax-base and can easily afford these people, unlike us. No more erroneous comparisons please. Money does not grow on trees.

A "No" vote is a vote to allow ALL babies born here citizenship, and after the Chen case, is also effectively a vote to allow their parents to stay in the EU - and perhaps even in Ireland. This is unacceptable because the costs placed on our small economy are unsustainable and unfair, as bigger countries are far better able to afford the strain economically. The Masters of the Rotunda warned Michael Martin according to a memo that a fourth Maternity hospital may need to be built because of the strain of non-national births.

Where's the money going to come from to build all these new hospitals? What cuts would you make to the education budget or elsewhere in the Health budget to pay for it?

arcadegame2004

cdebru, there is already freedom of movement with the Czech Republic and most Eastern European countries and immigrants from there are no longer allowed to apply for asylum but are now entitled to come here freely so I fail to see the relevance of the latter point you make. Romanians (Romania is not yet an EU member) don't need to come to Ireland to escape any discrimination you may be referring to. They can claim asylum in Germany or France. It is unfair to escape such a tiny economy like ours to bear such a disproportionate amount of the asylum-problem.

cdebru

hang on did you not say they have to claim asylum in the first eu country they come to
well if that eu country is the czech republic and you are a romanian gypsy why would you claim asylum in a country that mistreats it own gypsies
so then your answer is they should go to france or germany not the first country they come to
also you know that your wrong and scaremongering to suggest that we are the only country that immigrants are coming to
proportionately we have a lot less refugees than most eu countries
it is only a recent problem here most other eu countries have had it for decades
i was going to vote yes but your making me definitely think of voting no
i think your just greedy and selfish im alright jack merchant
i agree on the hospital front we cant have people turning up at the last minute
just because you cant expect hospitals to cope and plan under those circumstances
i have no problem with any child born here being an irish citizen
but because we are unique in hte eu it is causing a problem
and i think it will have to bee changed
i would prefer if all the other eu countries changed their laws to match ours
but that is not going to happen
so maybe we have to change
but im not sure
and not for all the reasons you list

arcadegame2004

Well cdebru, Ireland is joint-second in the EU in terms of numbers of asylum-seekers let in per head of population so while we may not have as many numerically, proportionately we are now very close to the % figure of other EU states. The 6% figure was in 2002 remember. There needs to be limits. If saying that immigration has to be limited is racist, then the all the rest of Europe must be racist. I don't consider them racist.

MadsL

Ireland is joint-second in the EU in terms of numbers of asylum-seekers let in per head of population

Source please!

MadsL

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_ref_cap&int=20&id=EUR


Certainly NOT 2nd on this list. Post your source please!

arcadegame2004

MadsL, here is my source:

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/12/30/story645296881.asp

It begins:

"We rank second for asylum seekers


By John Breslin
IRELAND has the second highest number of asylum seekers per head of population in the European Union, according to latest figures...."

arcadegame2004

And remember that only 5% of asylum-seekers arriving last year were deported.

MadsL

according to latest figures.

What fecking figures...he doesn't quote the source either!!

arcadegame2004

Are you accusing the Irish Examiner of lying?

MadsL

Hey arcade as you are so patrioic why don't you listen to your president
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/12/09/ihead_13.htm

MadsL

I'm saying that he doesn't give the source of the figures UN, EU, CSO...where are these figures from sthey accurate. We have already had all sorts of figures and numbers about the maternity wards...

arcadegame2004

MadSL, in relation to the President's speech, I point out two things:

A: The vast majority of asylum-seekers are not refugees, but rather are economic-migrants.

B: I have said that illegal-migration causes many problems, not least in the Health-Service and cost to the taxpayer. But I have never said that they are to blame for ALL of our problems.

The President did not say we must grant citizenship to all the children of asylum-seekers.

MadsL

Digging around looking for these stats I found this http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=3d7dfc985&page=statistics
Interesting that far from being the 'flood' as we so often hear, asylum applications actually fell by 8% in 2001-2002!

MadsL

are economic-migrants

As am I. As probably were at least several members of your extended family over the past 100 years.

I have said that illegal-migration causes many problems

Asylum seeking is NOT illegal migration.
Give me a list of problems caused by illegal migration.

Would it suprise you to learn that Ireland accepts just 16% of applications.
http://www.unhcr.ch/static/statistics_2002/asr02-dr2-Table5.pdf

cdebru

arcadegame only has a problem with economic migrants when they are coming to ireland not when they are leaving from here lets hope things never take aturn for the worse here and he has to leave to feed himself and his family
lets face it if people make their way to ireland its because they want to work that is why they are coming here not to sponge
its because there are jobs here its a side effect of prosperity you know how we could stop it lets go back to the good old days of the eighties with 20% unemployment
that will stop them yeah nobody will come if we haven,t got an arse in our trousers

arcadegame2004

Another important point. To those who argue that this referendum proposals may violate international law (the Human-Rights Commission), (even though we have softer citizenship and asylum-laws than any other country in Europe), I refer them to the sentence "The provisions of the 1951 Convention do not include flight motivated by economic deprivation, instead this is regulated by domestic immigration law. ".

I got that quote from this website
http://migration.ucc.ie/immigration/ts/chapter_two.htm