How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

cdebru

i think you are arguing with yourself i haven't heard anyone say they may be in violation of international law

arcadegame2004

cdebru, I was making that point because the Human Rights Commission (headed by former FG leader in the Seanad Mr. Maurice Manning ) made the claim, which clearly implies the whole of Europe is breaking International Law, which is clearly nonsense.

cdebru

whoever took notice of what the blueshirts mm imean fine gael are saying
really any party that had a gobs--- like j bruton and replaced him with baldy noonan
then mr nobody
cant be taken seriously

arcadegame2004

I have found yet more evidence of the abuse of our citizenship-laws by illegal-immigrants. I am placing a link here to a report in the Munster Express newspaper. The article states that:

A: 75% of Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland were already denied asylum in the UK.

B: No direct flights exist between Nigeria and Ireland.

This proves that all of our Nigerian asylum-seekers are illegal immigrants. The Dublin Convention 1981 is an EU agreement requiring that all asylum-seekers seeking asylum in the EU must claim asylum only in the first EU country they enter. The fact that 75% of Nigerian migrants have had their applications refused in the UK proves both that they arrived in another EU state prior to Ireland. B also proves this. They should be returned to the first EU state of entry.

http://www.munster-express.ie/030207/news10.htm

This articles adds that :

"He said more than 5,000 were living in hotels and hostels at the expense of the taxpayer, lone asylum seekers with children qualifying for close to E2,000 a month in 'entitlements' - made up of accommodation, food, heating, electricity and laundry services.

There was also the drain on the health services, with a significant number of hospital maternity beds in particular taken up by asylum seekers."

Also particularly important is that 90% of asylum-seekers fail the asylum-process. And :

"Of the remaining 10%, 95% were found to have travelled through convention countries and were therefore not entitled to seek asylum in Ireland because it was not their first country of arrival (which means only 1 qualifies out of every 200 seeking asylum).

Hugely relevant to the referendum. All the more reason to vote "Yes". It is a scandal that our own homeless are having to live on the streets while these people with no connection to Ireland get all this just by issuing the words "I claim asylum".

arcadegame2004

"Increase in asylum applications

At 11,530 the number of people applying for asylum in 2002 reached a new high, up 1,205 on last year. The previous highest total was 10,938 in 2000. Only about 45% of those who apply follow through by attending an interview to have their application assessed. Many of the remainder withdraw after the birth of a baby in this country as the parents of Irish nationals are generally granted residency. About one-third of all asylum-seekers come from Nigeria, with Romanians accounting for 14%."

Souce: http://www.emigrant.ie/files/indexfile.asp?id=68

MadsL, so much for your totally untrue claim that in 2002 the numbers of asylum-seekers fell.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I have found yet more evidence of the abuse of our citizenship-laws by illegal-immigrants. I am placing a link here to a report in the Munster Express newspaper. The article states that:

A: 75% of Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland were already denied asylum in the UK.

B: No direct flights exist between Nigeria and Ireland.

This proves that all of our Nigerian asylum-seekers are illegal immigrants. The Dublin Convention 1981 is an EU agreement requiring that all asylum-seekers seeking asylum in the EU must claim asylum only in the first EU country they enter.

I'm curious. If such a country refuses them asylum, are they then bound to go home and just suffer in silence? Is there no provision for them to continue to seek asylum elsewhere?

If they've been refused asylum, I would imagine that it is perfectly reasonable for them to seek it elsewhere. It would also show the allegation that they are targetting Ireland to be somewhat specious. They weren't targetting Ireland - they went to the UK first, got refused, and then - shock and horror - went to a country nearby.

jc

arcadegame2004

"I'm curious. If such a country refuses them asylum, are they then bound to go home and just suffer in silence? Is there no provision for them to continue to seek asylum elsewhere?

If they've been refused asylum, I would imagine that it is perfectly reasonable for them to seek it elsewhere. It would also show the allegation that they are targetting Ireland to be somewhat specious. They weren't targetting Ireland - they went to the UK first, got refused, and then - shock and horror - went to a country nearby." (bonkey)

No bonkey. These actions alone are a breach of the rules. Let the rules be enforced. To allow them to claim asylum here is nothign short of rewarding fraud.

dathi1

If they've been refused asylum, I would imagine that it is perfectly reasonable for them to seek it elsewhere.

If they where refused asylum in the UK on the basis that they don't fit the UK legitimate criteria (which is probably as fair as anywhere), then why should they be allowed to apply elsewhere in the EU?

arcadegame2004

We cannot just allow the entire population of the Third World to come and live off our welfare state. It would bankrupt this country. I am tired of the bleeding-heart brigade that want to allow unlimited migration into Ireland.

The asylum-system is not supposed to be there to facilitate benefits tourism or economic-migration. There is only two issues as far as I am concerned:

A: Are they fleeing State-persecution, famine or war?

If the answer to that question is "Yes", then the next question follows:

B: Was Ireland the first EU state they entered?

Statistics show that only 1 in 200 asylum-seekers meet both of those criteria. I say to the rest - return to the first EU state you entered. It is unsustainable to allow unlimited numbers of people the right to force the taxpayer to buy them houses etc. and to pay single-mothers who are asylum-seekers allowances worth 2000 euro per month (I kid you not it is reported on in the Munster Express article I quote).

Even Irish people do not get free houses from their Government.

arcadegame2004

Making asylum-claims in more than one EU state is nicknamed "asylum-shopping" and is effectively a fraud perpetrated on the taxpayer. These people whose asylum-claims have already been shown to be false should not be given the chance to again profit from makign up a cock-and-bull story.

Nigerian organised crime-gangs are notorious for their involvement in the copying, sale, and forging of passports. They now know that they can be helped in this process by bringing over a pregnant wife/girlfriend to give birth here, thanks to the Chen case. We can only stop this by removing the automatic right to citizenship as a result of birth.

The suspension by the US of issuing work-permits to Nigerians was a reaction to the kind of fraud I am talking about.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
then why should they be allowed to apply elsewhere in the EU?

Does every nation in the EU apply the same standards of applicability?

I'm pretty sure they don't, and if not, then what you and arcade are proposing as a fix (you apply one place, and if you're refused, the rest of the EU is off limits) is exactly the same type of "one nation applying its laws on others" situation that arcade (and you?) have been saying is wrong in the Chen case!

Think about it....if we accept someone, its wrong that they should be accepted everywhere in Europe, but if we refuse them, they should be automatically refused everywhere in Europe?

Why don't you just come out and say it - any change which will keep more people out is good in your books, because fairness and equitability seem to be inconveniences to be dropped along the way from what I can see.

I mean....you can stick to your "first port of call" all you like, but I can guarantee you that many of our European neighbours would soon start frowning severely if we took the line you guys seem to be advocating of "hey - its not our fault that we have no direct lines of contact with any poor country, and therefore aren't eleigible to receieve any asylum seekers. Here - you deal with them all and leave us alone".

And whats even funnier is that if our nation was one of the Easternmost or Southernmost affluent nations in Europe, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you'd be amongst the guys up there calling for a more equitable system, because it was entirely unfair that our nation bordered a problem spot and inevitably ended up with a disproportionate number of asylum seekers because of our location....

Sorry...but all I continue to see in the yes argument is "keep them out".

jc

arcadegame2004

And I will continue to regard your position as "let everyone who wants to come to Ireland come here and let the Irish taxpayer buy houses to all of them, regardless of the cost". Because Bonkey, you seem to be opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on immigration into Ireland. Such a position is totally against the interests of this country. The Left of course consider resources to be infinite.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And I will continue to regard your position as "let everyone who wants to come to Ireland come here and let the Irish taxpayer buy houses to all of them, regardless of the cost". Because Bonkey, you seem to be opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on immigration into Ireland.

Have you been missing the bit where I've been stating repeatedly that the problem is not that we give citizenship to people who have children, but rather that we do not enforce the rules that we have in place? Have you not seen the myriad of times I have asked what benefit another rule that won't be enforced?

I am as completely opposed to an open door policy as to a closed door one.

What I would like is a sensible, balanced, humanitarian-focussed, intelligent policy, which was correctly enforced. A policy which would allow people to work, which would control the numbers within reason, and which would be designed to ensure that those who do come here are not forced to live off the state.

I have also said that I would like to see the system changed, but I will not support something just because it is a change.

But I guess its easy to miss all of that whilst constantly crying out for the door to be closed.

jc

MadsL

MadsL, so much for your totally untrue claim that in 2002 the numbers of asylum-seekers fell.

Ah yes, I defer to the weight of 'official' statistics quoted without source by the likes of the Munster Express, Tramore Town Councillor Blaise Hannigan (who??), and the Irish Emigrant (how ironic is that)

Yes, my statistics come from that seriously dodgy source...The UN. More precisely, the UNHCR - the United Nations refugee agency.

Read the report again. Refugee applications fell by 8%.
It's here...http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=3d7dfc985&page=statistics Read it.

bobbyjoe

Still haven't heard an answer to my question made earlier.

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?

MadsL

The words of Michael Davitt, Land League leader and politician, in the defence of the Jews in Ireland in 1893, are apposite:

we are bound in justice and in reason to extend to all who seek the shelter of our island shores the same treatment and hospitality which the members of our own race have received at the hands of so many nations all over the globe, when driven by persecution and unjust government from their own country” (as quoted in Keogh: 1998:20).

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe Ireland not allowing automatic citizenship for the babies of asylum-seekers would be no different from the rest of the EU. The vast majority of pregnant asylum seekers that are pregnant on arrival in Ireland are pregnant in order to get citizenship for their children. That is placing unsustainable pressure on our hospitals. Even after a possible "Yes" vote we will still have a more liberal asylum system that the rest of Europe.

Citizenship entitled you to vote in this country. It entitled you to permanent residency in this country. The Chen ruling ruled that Mr. and Mrs. Chen could have freedom to reside in the EU because their child was an Irish-born and therefore an EU citizen. As Ireland is part of the EU, it is possible that this ruling may apply here too. EU law overrides national-law.

At the very least, the continuation of the status-quo regarding our citizenship law will allow Ireland to be used as a way of getting guaranteed permanent residency for asylum-seekers in the EU, and thus put huge pressures on our already hard-pressed hospitals. In the memorandum that was quoted in the Iridih Independent some weeks ago, it was revealed that the Masters of the Rotunda had warned that a fourth Maternity hospital might have to be build to cope with the extraordinary number of non-national births. 6% of our population is non-national according to Census 2002. Yet 24% of our births were to non-nationals. Why such a high birth-rate among non-nationals? Citizenship is obviously the reason.

Since you talk about equality Bobbyjoe, answer me this: Where is the equality in ALL the asylum-seekers getting free housing at the taxpayer's expense, and rent-free? Do Irish people get free housing? No they don't. Asylum-seeker mothers get up to 2000 Euro per MONTH in social-welfare benefits. Do Irish mothers get that? Is it equality for asylum-seekers to be fast-tracked up the housing list queue while the rest of us on it have to wait 3 or 4 years to get a house?

These people are treated better than the rest of us by the State. The baby-racket has to stop. The hospitals cannot cope with Ireland being used as a backdoor to Europe. It is not what they are for. I am not prepared to allow people to plot to abuse our laws to get residency throughout the whole EU. If that is allowed then they will all come here because the guarantee is so tempting for them.

By giving birth here, asylum-seekers get an EU passport having given birth to an EU-citizen. Nigerian crime-gangs are notorious for the sale, copying and counterfeiting of passports and they will be delighted that we are helping them in this process by so easily allowing them to gain access to EU passports. We should not be helping them. I say vote "Yes" and end this fraud on the Irish people.

I say and say again. Claim asylum ONLY in the first EU state you enter. The law is the law. In the name of equality I demand that these people also be subject to the law. Ireland is a Dublin Convention country. Allowing these people to becoem a burden on the Irish state, regardless of how many come, is not in Ireland's economic interests. Neither is allowing them all to work, since they would naturally be more attractive to employers owing to their willingness to work for terribly low-wages.

Bonkey, I know you claim now to not favour an open-door. However, that is effectively what we now have. The Chen-ruling DOES NOT say that Ireland is not subject to the same requirements as the other 24 EU states to grant residency-rights to the parents of EU citizens. In fact, as EU law is supposed to apply equally to all EU states, most likely the parents of EU citizens ARE now allowed by this ruling, to permanently reside in Ireland.

One things for sure. This Chen episode has made me more sceptical about accepting the European Constitution.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Still haven't heard an answer to my question made earlier.

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?

This question has already been chewed over. Some countries, including USA and presently Ireland, do indeed grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil. But, from what we can gather, no-one else in Europe does it this way, regardless of whether they are monarchies or republics. This is not to say that Europe has the last word on it, just that citizenship based on place of birth is far from an essential requirement of a republic.

Athens was the original republic, and I believe they kept slaves. So, yes, clearly republics should operate on the basis that all members are equal, but that’s not to say that they don’t have membership rules. I’m voting yes, but I feel our republic should have reasonably open membership rules and a policy of treating non-members decently.

MadsL

Let's TRY and get some sense of the actual figures...

Here are the Irish figures for 2002:

existing population of refugees 3,598
New Arrivals in 2002 2,131
Total Refugee population at the end of 2002 = 5,380

Source: UNHCR

By way of comparison 458,975 Asylum applications were submitted in Europe in 2002

Source: UNHCR

MadsL

The view persists that asylum-seekers and refugees are getting more than their fair share, for example, nearly 40% of respondents to one survey believed an asylum-seeking couple get more generous social welfare benefits than an Irish couple (Amnesty International: 11 May 2002). Such a view was articulated in some of the sampled articles by Cork TD Noel O’Flynn who claimed asylum-seekers were “spongers, wasters and con-men” (Riegel & Niland 2002). Such attitudes have also been linked by Peillon to the fact that many Irish people have yet to benefit from the economic improvements in Ireland over the past decade (Peillon 2000: 113).

Source
From a study of Irish political leadership and newspaper reporting and Irish attitudes to immigration.

Since you talk about equality Bobbyjoe, answer me this: Where is the equality in ALL the asylum-seekers getting free housing at the taxpayer's expense, and rent-free? Do Irish people get free housing? No they don't. Asylum-seeker mothers get up to 2000 Euro per MONTH in social-welfare benefits. Do Irish mothers get that? Is it equality for asylum-seekers to be fast-tracked up the housing list queue while the rest of us on it have to wait 3 or 4 years to get a house?

Where is your evidence that this is taking place? Do Irish people get free housing? Yes they do. So do EU citizens. Asylum-seeker mothers get up to 2000 Euro per MONTH in social-welfare benefits... really, ALL of them? Please produce sources for this claim.

Is it equality for asylum-seekers to be fast-tracked up the housing list queue while the rest of us on it have to wait 3 or 4 years to get a house? In a society with low unemployment, yes it probably is. Are you on the queue is that why you seem so bitter. Again, produce EVIDENCE.

arcadegame2004

"we are bound in justice and in reason to extend to all who seek the shelter of our island shores the same treatment and hospitality which the members of our own race have received at the hands of so many nations all over the globe, when driven by persecution and unjust government from their own country” (as quoted in Keogh: 1998:20)." (Bobbyjoe)

Correct but 99% of our asylum-seekers are NOT "driven by persecution and unjust government from their own country”. They are nearly all from democracies that are not oppressive, and which are not at war or experiencing famine. Comparing these people to the Jews in Nazi Germany is ludicrous. They are economic-migrants and the asylum-system is not intended to be used for that purpose. Therefore our asylum-system is being abused. This abuse is costing the taxpayer a fortune. The Dail website shows that 340 million euro was spent on asylum-seekers in 2002. A waste of money when you consider that most of these people have already passed through 6 or 7 Dublin Convention countries. They are supposed to stay in the first one of those they entered by they are breaking the rules.

They are asylum-shopping. Shopping around for the most generous system. Namely ours. It is totally unacceptable to me that we are being forced to pay the costs that Italy and Spain should be paying. After all they have far more taxpayers than us so they can easier afford them.

The Citizenship issue is one reason why many persist in trying to get to Ireland. When looking at why Ireland is joint-second with Belgium in the EU league of numbers of asylum-seekers per head of population, you have to look at what factors could make Ireland more attractive. The citizenship one is the most well-known. No-one outside of Europe really knew of this aspect of our law until we became wealthy and included the citizenship issue in the GFA. The worldwide prominence in the media given to the GFA made the citizenship rule prominent too.

We should not be forced by citizenship-tourism to build ever more hospitals with our taxpayers money simply to facilitate the citizenship tourism. If 1 million non-national pregnant women came to this country, the Left would blame the Government of the day for a failure to cope. That is how irrational they are. No Government can be expected to be able to guarantee that sufficient resources will be there to pay for the treatment of UNLIMITED numbers of asylum-seekers. Yet if that were to happen, our stupid citizenship-law would put their rights before those of Irish patients.

We've allowed ourselves to be taken for a ride by these people for far too long and enough is enough. Asylum should mean safehaven from persecution, famine or war and THAT alone. We can fill our labour-shortages from the new EU member states.

arcadegame2004

MadsL your figures are grossly misleading.

60,000 asylum-seekers reside in the State. I know they are not "refugees" because they are not fleeing persecution, famine or war. I don't define economic migrants as refugees.

You are only addressing numbers whose applications have already been approved.

First you tell us that only 3% of our population is non-national. The Irish Census told us that the number is 6%, and I posted a link to prove that.

Then you tell us that Ireland is not joint-second in the EU in terms of asylum-seekers per head of population, and I post a link that shows it is.

So it's not surprising that your playing the same game again of misleading people.

The terms "asylum-seeker" and "refugees" are not one and the same in meaning. Maybe if you were actually Irish you'd be sufficiently interested to check your facts. RTE News reported in 2002 that over 11,000 applied for asylum in 2002. Are they lying too?

arcadegame2004

Sorry MadSL but your figures on asylum ARE WRONG. I am certain about this. Even some of your fello "No" vote supporters have admitted that far more than that claimed asylum here in the last 10 years.

arcadegame2004

For example MadsL, go to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160726&perpage=10&pagenumber=13


Read all of Bonkey's contribution on that page where her clearly admits that over 11,000 claimed asylum in 2002.

MadsL

Comparing these people to the Jews in Nazi Germany is ludicrous.

Michael Davitt...1893...err crack a history book sometime.


Have a GOOD look at what Asylum seekers actually get in benefits.

Asylum seekers who have been in the State for more than a year including the 26th of July 1999 are permitted to seek and take up employment. They currently have the right to job preparation and placement through the FAS Asylum Seeker Unit.[19] Moreover, the White Paper on Adult Education – Learning for Life – states that asylum seekers with the right to work have access to Voluntary Training Opportunity Scheme (VTOS) courses, literacy and language provision.

All other asylum seekers are not permitted to work. In fact they can face criminal prosecution under Section 9 (7) of the Refugee Act 1996 if they are found to be working illegally. They can be imprisoned for a term not exceeding a month and or fined £500. Nonetheless, employers do not face any penalty if they are caught hiring non-nationals with no right to work in Ireland.

Adult asylum seekers do not have the right to state funded education.[20] However, the aforementioned White Paper does recommend that asylum seekers be given access to literacy, language provision and mother culture support.

Asylum seekers do have the right to medical care and some are in receipt of full Supplementary Welfare Assistance (SWA) payments, and rent supplementation if they secure private rented accommodation. However asylum seekers who have arrived in the State after April 2000 are being provided for through a system of direct provision and are regionally resettled to full-board accommodation.[21] Under direct provision they receive £15.00 a week per adult and £7.50 per child. They may apply to their Community Welfare Officer (CWO) for exceptional needs payments. Furthermore, asylum seekers (including those on direct provision) with dependant children can apply for Child Benefit.

Source http://migration.ucc.ie/oralarchive/testing/lives/rights.html#5


You haven't answered my question about how many of your family were emigrants.

arcadegame2004

MadsL, the "full-board accommodation" includes houses bought up by the State especially for asylum-seekers.

MadsL

Maybe if you were actually Irish

Arcade you have just let slip your agenda for this whole 'campaign' of yours.

My figures are from The United Nations. And I have posted the sources. You on the other hand are peddling all sorts of alarmist nonsense.

You have just blown ANY credibility you had...Irish for the Irish, huh? Idiot.

MadsL

houses bought up by the State

So, asylum seekers are not 'being given' houses then.

Ryvita

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sorry MadSL but your figures on asylum ARE WRONG. I am certain about this. Even some of your fello "No" vote supporters have admitted that far more than that claimed asylum here in the last 10 years.

OMG Arcadegame .... his figures are "WRONG" and all you can back this up with is posts from other No voters.

"Maybe if you were actually Irish "

And people on this board are getting annoyed that others are calling you a racist and a bigot. I think that's our Q.E.D right there.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Yet 24% of our births were to non-nationals. Why such a high birth-rate among non-nationals? Citizenship is obviously the reason.

People keep using this word "obvious"....but generally in cases where it is far from obvious.

HAve you tried comparing the birth rates of Irish nationals against the birth-rates of the nations that these asylum-seekers / refugees / immigrants come from?

Many lesser developed nations have grossly higher birth rates than the developed nations. This is well documented, and indeed a cause for concern for many when projecting future populations.

Your argument, however, appears to make the assumption that as soon as these people are out of the lesser developed region, they will automatically abandon their cultural practice of high birth-rates? What grounds do we have to base this "obvious" assumption on?

Lets see...maybe they abandon other aspects of their culture like their language? Their cultural dress? Their religions? Maybe they integrate into Irish society seemlessly except for this one aberration?

Nope, didn't think so. In fact, its priceless that one of the major reasons for peopel opposing immigration in any non-trivial quantities is the cultural "threat". And yet, here we are, being asked to believe that the continuation of a cultural trait is obviously no such thing, but rather a deliberate attempt to screw the system.

Would this include the same people who deliberately came here to abuse our citizenship laws, but somehow accidentally got refused asylum in other nations first despite Ireland being clearly their choice of destination, by any chance?

jc