How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

MadsL

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?

Convention refugee is defined in Section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996 as,

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

intersting how you feel qualified to judge the level of 'fear' as 'pah, just economic migrants'.

What exactly is wrong with economic migration. Give me a list...I've asked before. Go, give me a list of all of the 'evils' of economic migration.

Is it cus I is Irish?

MadsL

Maybe if you were actually Irish you'd be sufficiently interested to check your facts

Maybe the fact that I have lived and worked in 5 countries, and my wife has lived and worked in 7, and travelled in 48, gives me a different sensibility. You on the other hand have probably never left Munster, apart from 2 weeks in 'Lanzerotty'. Oh, except for your 17 cousins in Boston and 2 aunts in Kilburn...:rolleyes:

bonkey

Gents...

keep up the insults and neither of you will have to suffer the other's comments much longer.

jc

arcadegame2004

I am not in the business of ascribing certain patterns of behaviour on the basis of race. The current system amounts to allowing, in theory, unlimited numbers of pregnant women to claim Irish (and therefore EU) citizenship for their children. The potential strain this could put on the Irish Health-Service is unacceptable. And so unnecessary.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by MadsL
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.

Arcadegame is wrong to make an issue of your nationality, and in a contribution above he seems to be just plain insulting towards anyone not Irish.

But you are interpreting the figures incorrectly, and confusing statistics on refugees i.e. people who have successfully been granted asylum here with asylum seekers, i.e. people claiming asylum, but whose cases have not yet been determined.
As is well documented, only a minority of cases are successful.

There are three issues here.
1. We should grant asylum to people fleeing persecution, and have an international obligation to do so. We do.

2. We should have a fair system allowing economic migrants to enter the country. We have a work permit system, but the consensus seems to be its well past its sell-buy date. The referendum does not address this issue at all.

3. We should have a rational approach to granting citizenship to children of non-nationals. At present children of persons entering the country illegally, including Norn Iron, can claim Irish citizenship. This is the unintended result of attempting to have law that guarentees the status of people in Norn Iron. Its simply a loophole that needs to be closed. There is reasonable evidence that this loophole is being abused at some level, and it seems daft to wait for chaos before acting. This is what the referendum is addressing.

MadsL

Bonkey, tbh a ban would be worth it...
I'm at a loss to describe how insulting it is to live in a country, work, pay taxes and then be told by this muppet that your opinion does not count because you are not Irish. I don't even get to vote in this referendum.

Here's an idea - ban arcade and myself for a week and let some other voices be heard on this issue...

arcadegame2004

Ishmael I am not insulting "anyone not Irish". If I was I would have used racist slurs. I did not. It is human-nature that some humans exploit loopholes in the law if they can benefit from them financially and otherwise. Offshore bank-accounts for example. That too is a loophole I feel needs to be closed.

I actually admire the fact that in the UK people can debate this issue without being demonised as a racist. It would be nice if that democratic right to hold different opinions without being demonised as some kind of crypto-fascist were possible in this country. Unfortunately, the Irish Left has not moved an inch from their hard-Left ethos which includes labelling all those who wish to restrict immigration as "racist". I am not a racist. I have nothing against other races. I am opposed, however, to loopholes in our laws being abused, both by Irish people and by non-nationals. I am not implying that all non-nationals in our country are abusers of the system. I do not consider those who immigrate here legally to be abusing our system. I have not objected to the 150,000 work-permits being issued to non-EU nationals. I am objecting to the use of a system intend to provide safe-haven from persecution/famine/war for reasons that have nothing to do with fleeing such circumstances.

My criticism of Madsl was not a slur on all foreigners or all British people. I am simply making the point that Irish people naturally follow events in Ireland closer than nationals of other countries. For example, someone in London will be less familiar with Irish politics than we Irish are. Someone in Portugal will know less about British politics than a British person. Does saying this make me anti-Portuguese or anti-British? I am again simply giving examples of human-nature, which is to know more about ones own country than other countries. I see no reason why this should be taken as anti-foreigner.

I agree with your point about Madsl's arguments though.

bonkey

One week ban to MadsL for not dropping it when he was told to.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I am simply making the point that Irish people naturally follow events in Ireland closer than nationals of other countries. For example, someone in London will be less familiar with Irish politics than we Irish are.

But MadsL is not in London. He's in Ireland.

I am again simply giving examples of human-nature, which is to know more about ones own country than other countries. I see no reason why this should be taken as anti-foreigner.

You are comparing "foreigner living in Ireland" with "Irish person livbing in Ireland" and concluding that the Irish person will know more about Irish politics. This is not what you've just explained.

For example, as an Irish person living in Switzerland, your logic dictates that I am both less informed and less interested in Swiss politics than the average swiss person.

Tell me....exactly how much faith do you have that this is true in my case?

jc

arcadegame2004

Well if I lived in Switzerland, the language barrier would make it hard for me to follow politics. But Bonkey, my point was making a generality. Yes, there are some exceptions, and you may be one of them. But generally what I am saying about people being more interested and therefore more informed on what is happening in their country that people not from their own countries.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well if I lived in Switzerland, the language barrier would make it hard for me to follow politics. But Bonkey, my point was making a generality. Yes, there are some exceptions, and you may be one of them.

And MADsL could just as equally be one of them, but it didn't stop you casting aspersions at his knowledge of Irish information based on his nationality.

And before you go into the "but he was clearly wrong" self-righteous trip, consider that not every single argument and piece of evidence you have held up has been perfect either.

But generally what I am saying about people being more interested and therefore more informed on what is happening in their country that people not from their own countries.

Again, I would point out that this is generally true for people living in their own country. For people living abroad, my experience is that they generally are as interested in the politics of the nation where they are living as they are in the politics of the nation they hail from.

In either case, its not a discussion I care to get into. I was simply pointing out that your entire line of offered reasoning for the comment was that people are less interested in the politics of countries they neither were born in nor live in.....which has absolutely no relevance to the case you applied it to, which was someone being interested in the politics of the country they were resident in.

And I find it amusing that MADsL clearly is interested in Irish politics, and yet you are defending your insulting his Irish political knowledge by basically saying that he is not interested.

If he's not interested, why was he here on this forum, disucssing an issue he has no vote on? More correctly - why was he here, given that you insulted him enough to provoke a reaction which warranted a ban?

The guy was in a dicsussion about Irish politics. You insulted him enough that he willingly overstepped the bounds and picked up a ban to make his opinion of your insult heard, and you still insist he's not interested in the topic as a defence for having insulted him.

That logic defeats me.

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, my criticism of MadsL must be seen in the context of what I felt were persistant use of misleading statistics ,e.g. only 3% non nationals (its 6% in the Census 2002), that, if left unchallenged, might mislead a potential voter.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ishmael I am not insulting "anyone not Irish". If I was I would have used racist slurs.

Welcoming, as always, the chance to lapse into pedantry I might point out that I have not said you were racist. Race and nationality are not the same thing, so your appeal to nationalism does not necessarily imply racism. For all I know Madsl might share our race, but not our nationality. For all you know you and I might be of different races, but share nationality.

It is true that you said that Madsl might have checked his facts if he was Irish. That does seem insulting, as it seems to suggest only Irish people can be expected to responsibly debate this topic and non-national contributors are inherently suspect.

arcadegame2004

If MadsL took my comments as an insult, then I assure him and you that an insult was not how my remarks were intended.

bobbyjoe

"Where is the equality in ALL the asylum-seekers getting free housing "

Where do you want them to stay, would you sleep better if they were left on the streets or living in tents? Why not let them work and pay their own rent?


"Do Irish people get free housing? No they don't. "
That’s not the asylum seekers fault.
Out of all the stakeholders you constantly blame the weakest.
So in this republic your status depends on who your parents are?

With regards to their entitlements:

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/child_benefit.html?PHPSESSID=4d5dcc3a98126e86a866f780469d12ac

Each adult will receive a personal allowance of 19.05 euro per week and 9.52 euro for each child plus child benefit. Your local Community Welfare Officer (CWO) will advise you on how to apply for child benefit.

Child benefit
The current monthly rate for the first and second child is:
131.60 euro
For third and subsequent children:
165.30 euro

arcadegame2004

The free housing is paid for by the taxpayer and we cannot be expected to buy up housing for unlimited numbers of people. There is effectively an open-door at present and June 11th may be the last chance for many years we get to impose some sort of regulation of the asylum-system.

arcadegame2004

"Where do you want them to stay, would you sleep better if they were left on the streets or living in tents? " (Bobbyjoe)

No, I'd prefer them to be housed by the first EU country they enter. It's legally THEIR responsibility.

bobbyjoe

The story with housing is as follow
initially housed in a Reception Centre in Dublin for up to two weeks
After this time they will be housed in a full board accommodation centre.
Full board means accommodation and all meals.

Not exactly getting a free house!
Why aren’t they just allowed work and pay their own rent?

Also
Go down to the school house in Dun Laoghaire.
Behind the County Council building there is a place called the old school house its used to house asylum seekers. Have a look around ask to see one of the rooms .
Then come back and tell me that those people are here to scrounge off us.

http://migration.ucc.ie/icmsinmedia/Irish%20Times%20Article%20-%20Government%20aims%20to%20tackle%20asylum-seeker%20crisis%20while%20reducing%20numbers%20arriving%20here.htm

A European Commission survey of asylum-seekers in Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium published last year found that the generosity of a state's welfare provision was not a factor in any "check-list" of host countries that they may have had.
Asylum-seekers said they were mainly influenced by practical matters, such as to where they were physically able to travel or where they had family members, colonial or political ties or language connections.

No, I'd prefer them to be housed by the first EU country they enter. It's legally THEIR responsibility.

Thats all well and good but their not housed in the first country they enter and they are here so its our responsibility.

It comes down to wether you think that we will be flooded with asylum seekers due to this item in the constitution. So far there have been no statistics to back this up and the rule has been there for 50 years.

arcadegame2004

"It comes down to wether you think that we will be flooded with asylum seekers due to this item in the constitution. So far there have been no statistics to back this up and the rule has been there for 50 years." (Bobbyjoe)

No-one cared about that rule until we became rich then all of a sudden thousands were coming here. So your not comparing like with like. And anyway, this loophole was not in the irish Constitution until 1998. Yes, it was the law before then since 1921. But it could have been easily changed via the Dail and Seanad before 1998. The media prominence of the GFA internationally made economic-migrants aware of our loophole and only too willing to exploit it.

" European Commission survey of asylum-seekers in Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium published last year found that the generosity of a state's welfare provision was not a factor in any "check-list" of host countries that they may have had.
Asylum-seekers said they were mainly influenced by practical matters, such as to where they were physically able to travel or where they had family members, colonial or political ties or language connections."

Of course the asylum-seekers aren't going to admit that they come here for economic reasons.

"Thats all well and good but their not housed in the first country they enter and they are here so its our responsibility. "

No its the responsibility to these people to apply for asylum only in the first EU country they enter. How can they get their accommodation if they don't ask?

BuffyBot

A European Commission survey of asylum-seekers in Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium published last year found that the generosity of a state's welfare provision was not a factor in any "check-list" of host countries that they may have had.
Asylum-seekers said they were mainly influenced by practical matters, such as to where they were physically able to travel or where they had family members, colonial or political ties or language connections.

As said above, I'd be wary of opinion poll type surveys in matters like this. They werre hardly likely to admit that they were going to a particular country for that reason, were they?

arcadegame2004

I bet that when the Late Late Show does its usual programme on a forthcoming referendum we will see an attempt by the bleeding hearts to get us to vote "No" by trying to deceive us into believing that these asylum-seekers are actually in Ireland to escape persecution. There lawyers will prob ask them to put on the waterworks with a cock-and-bull story worthy of the Oscars. We must not be fooled. 75% of Nigerian asylum seekers in ireland lost their claism for asylum in the UK.

Typedef

I'm trying not to say alot on this debate, since, I don't believe in practice it accomplishes anything other then getting me hot and bothered and spending time on the internet when I should be working.

However, I take exception to people blithely spouting hot air about the leacherous asylum seeker coming to Ireland and quote "why didn't they stay in country (x, y, z) on the way here?"

The answer is quite simple. The vast majority have only English as a semblence of a second language and in choosing a country to seek asylum in, that is not poor, stable a good place to live, the ability to communicate is absolutely 'vital'. Thus to me, given the high number of people who speak English globally as a second language, it is only logical that asylum seekers would seek out an English speaking country.

Given that fact, within Europe their potential destination, is Britain or Ireland. So whatever about the 'per-capita' numbers Ireland takes in, in comparison to Britain, the simple fact is that Ireland takes a tiny fraction of 'English' speaking asylum seekers.

If I were a French speaking asylum seeker and was looking to leave a country for whatever reason of psersecution, Germany or Britain would not be my desired destination, since I wouldn't speak the language.

To my mind it goes completely against the spirit of giving asylum, to blithely insist that anybody who didn't stay in Austria for example on the way to Ireland and couldn't speak German, but, could speak English, *must* be a welfare leech. Whatever about how the 'Yes' exponents twist their arguments when pressed on fora like this, the usual base case argument put forward is one of welfare leachery.

Since that's just patent racism, pseudo-intellectual rationalisation of that position does not lead me to wish to vote Yes. Even Minister McDowell, admitted that he had got his facts wrong about being *asked* to change the consitiution, even though the man had used that so-called *fact* as jusification for the referendum. Yet still, after admitting his error, he persisted with his point.
That seems completely illogical to me and really, if the *logic* used to justify a Yes vote is made up on the fly in such a manner, I can't in all good concience, accept such a weak argument on the say so of a government I've never voted with, bar the Belfast agreement, which now, looks to be subject to change at the whim of government.

No doubt there is some validity to the claims, of leachery in the welfare system, but, I've yet to see any kind of objective proof to that end and, moreover, and this point being the crux of my point.

In criminal justice there is a tennent that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free, then it is for one innocent man to be punished in error.

Therefore, since to my mind the case for wholesale welfare defraudment and random baby-having in order to gain citizenship in the Irish 'garden of Eden', is highly tenuous and fraught with demi-racist overtures, I'll be voting No.

arcadegame2004

Well typedef, if they want to get to an English-speaking country then they have the UK as a destination. Yet 80% of asylum-seekers in Ireland arrive here via Northern Ireland. How does this fit with your claims? hmmm? And 75% of Nigerian asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland have already had their asylum-claims rejected in the UK. They have been proven to be bogus asylum-seekers yet you would have us let them in with all the costs of acommodation them that would bring? I cannot condone such wastage of taxpayers money. Also, may I add that with 6% of the population identifying themselves as "non-Irish" in the 2002 census, this is a a 16% increase in their numbers each year. At this rate non-nationals will be a majority in the Republic of Ireland by 2032. Doesn't that bother you? The Irish a minority in their own country?

dathi1

There lawyers will prob ask them to put on the waterworks with a cock-and-bull story worthy of the Oscars. We must not be fooled.

bang on!...the legal profession here has made a mint out of the whole asylum scam here for the past few years. We end up paying these asylum shopper's legal bills over and over again on refusal and on appeal etc..No wonder they were out in force to launch the No campaign.

arcadegame2004

The precious resources of our Health-Service should not be wasted on those who simply wish to use it to gain Irish/EU citizenship and an EU passport. That is not what it is for. It is naieve in the extreme to deny a link between the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers of the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival in the Republic of Ireland in 2003, and the fact that their baby gets automatic Irish and EU citizenship. The numbers since 1998 have been at least as high and sometimes even higher, e.g. 65% in 2002.

Organised crime now has an easy way of getting passports to help their activity. Those Nigerian gangs involved in the fraudulent sale and copying of passports job is made all the easier by us.

The former imperial rulers e.g. Britain, France, Spain, are the ones who owe a moral deb to the countries they once oppressed. They should bear the biggest part of the burden of migration. Ireland was not such an imperial power however. Yet figures show that we rank only joint-second with Belgium for numbers coming here per head of population.

A memorandum of discussions between Michael Martin (the Health Minister) and the Masters of the Rotunda reveal that they warned Michael Martin that a 4th Maternity Hospital might have to be built in Dublin to cope with the huge numbers of non-nationals giving birth and that it had been a miracle that there hadn't already been a "catastrophe" (their phrase not mine).

We are only a small country and a tax-base of 1.9 million cannot possibly cope with providing the Health, Education, and housing needs of unrestricted numbers coming here. The problem is that being the only EU state to award citizenship on the basis of birth makes us the second most attractive country for asylum-seekers to come to searching for a better life. But the problems of the Third World are not Ireland's fault.

arcadegame2004

Typedef, actually the issue of SW abuse is only part of the problem.

The Chen case ruled that because Mr and Mrs Chen produced a child born in Ireland, which was therefore an Irish and thus an EU-citizen, that this meant that BOTH parents automatically had residency-rights across the EU. The EU includes Ireland.

This means that any asylum-seeker facing deportation from another EU state can avoid it by simply turning up here pregnant. I'd call that a loophole. This is likely to lead to a total reversal in the decline in asylum-seeker numbers in 2003 and early 2004 that had been a result of the Supreme Court 2003 ruling that the asylum-seeker parents of Irish-born children could be deported.

As for the 150 lawyers supporting the "No" side, they are making a great deal of money out of this whole asylum-issue and they are just trying to continue that. Pious declarations from that quarter aside.

The legal position without a change in the Irish Constitution's citizenship rules is this:

Asylum-seekers who are parents to Irish-born children can no longer be deported. The Chen case ruled as such. They were allowed to stay because of what the Court called "family unity". This opens the floodgates for unlimited numbers of asylum-seekers both in Ireland and mainland Europe to travel to Ireland to give birth and thereby gain CERTAINTY that they can no longer be deported. It is totally unreasonable to expect the Irish Health Service to be abused in this way. It is ALREADY overstretched.

And don't give me this rubbish about how the asylum-seeking parent can still be deported from Ireland but not from another EU State, EU law applies equally across every EU state, including Ireland. Chances are that most failed asylum-seekers after travelling pregnant to Ireland, will choose to stay here, placing huge strain on SW far more than could otherwise have been planned for. They will also take much of the available local-authority housing that would otherwise go to Irish people. The asylum-seekers get the houses on a plate whereas it can take years and great expense for Irish people to get a house! This system is racism against Irish people and far from bringing about equality, it allows foreigners a position above that of the rest of us. TO protest against this is NOT racism, though the usual crowd of Lefties will do doubt say that ANY controls on immigration are "racist", or "fascist" etc. These people should get a sense of proportion and tolerate other peopel disagreeing with them without the use of such hysterical language.

A "No" vote will leave Ireland defenceless to control immigration into our country. It will provide criminals and terrorists with new ways to gain Irish and EU passports to travel across the length and breadth of Europe. In short, a "No" vote is sheer madness. We must vote "Yes".

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

This means that any asylum-seeker facing deportation from another EU state can avoid it by simply turning up here pregnant. I'd call that a loophole.

What, even a male asylum seeker? I'd call that a miracle.

arcadegame2004

"What, even a male asylum seeker? I'd call that a miracle." (Tommy Vercetti)

Well Mrs.Chen's husband was also awarded EU residency rights by the ECJ. So if the pregnant woman came to Ireland with the father of her baby then he would likely get residency rights too.

I don't want millions of people to have an absolute right to have permanent residency in Ireland just by turning up here pregnant. The chaos it would cause in our hospitals, housing etc. and in cost to the taxpayer of housing them, are too terrible to countenance.

Yet that is where we will be if we vote "No". So we should vote "Yes".

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't want millions of people to have an absolute right to have permanent residency in Ireland just by turning up here pregnant. The chaos it would cause in our hospitals, housing etc. and in cost to the taxpayer of housing them, are too terrible to countenance.

Yet that is where we will be if we vote "No". So we should vote "Yes".

Really, where do you get off posting such utter rubbish?

If we vote no, thus maintaining the status quo, by your logic we should already be over-run by these armies of pregnant spongers, yet the reality proves you wrong time and time again.

arcadegame2004

"If we vote no, thus maintaining the status quo, by your logic we should already be over-run by these armies of pregnant spongers, yet the reality proves you wrong time and time again." (Tommy Vercetti)

The Chen Judgement is actually only a few days old, but has already changed things completely. It said that the parents of EU citizens CANNOT BE DEPORTED. This means that we are back where we were - in terms of residency rights - to the situation in Ireland before the January 2003 Supreme Court ruling that they could be deported.

Anyone facing deportation in the EU now need only come here (if a pregnant female asylum-seeker) with or without the child's father and both will be undeportable after the child gives birth, because then they will be the parents of an EU-citizen, like Mr. and Mrs.Chen, who were advised by their lawyer that if Mrs.Chen had a baby in Belfast, the Irish Constitution would make her child an Irish and therefore EU citizen, making them undeportable. It turned out they were correct.

As such, whatever disincentive last year's Supreme Court ruling has had is now null and void, and numbers will pick up again massively. Unless we vote "Yes" and therefore remove the cause of children of asylum-seekers getting Irish/EU citizenship making the parents undeportable.

My reference to "millions" of asylum-seekers is based on the fact that those facing deportation from another EU state would be seriously tempted to come here knowing that giving birth here would permanently give them rights of residency throughout the EU. Criminals will no doubt also be grateful to us for giving them passports to forge, sell, and copy.

I don't want the thanks of crime gangs. And I want to end the abuse - soon likely to get MUCH worse - of our Health-Service and Welfare-State. That is why I am voting "Yes". Chen is a crucial argument for a "Yes" vote. The "No" side are being extremely disingenuous is trying to suggest otherwise.