How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

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.

You can't base a fact on it speculating that somebody might be tempted to do something. That's not fact. That is an opinion. Again, you are introducing a criminal element to this debate - why is that? Scaremongering perhaps?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

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. .

And again - associating crime gangs with this debate. How dare you accuse ANYONE of being disingenuous.

arcadegame2004

Why do government's close loopholes that help tax-evasion? Because they don't want to allow people an opportunity to use them e.g. recent EU agreement with Switzerland. Prevention is better than cure.

cdebru

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".

thats just crap it gives the parents a right of residency not a passport second if you think a terrorist or criminal is going to be dependant on having a baby to access ireland or the EU your living on cloud cuckoo land the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people coming here as political or economic refugees are simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families as we did in years gone by

that does not mean we should accept everybody who wants to come here nor does it mean that we should slam the doors shut we need a proper immigration policy so everyone knows where they stand and people aren't left waiting for years for the outcome of asylum applications
surely it would be cheaper and fairer to employ more people to process these claims rather than housing people for upto 4 years while they are being processed

arcadegame2004

But cdebru, although you say that we don't need to accept everybody, the fact is that this EU ruling means that while children of asylum seekers born in Ireland continue to get automatic Irish/EU citizenship, that all a woman facing deportation from another EU state has to do is arrive in Ireland pregnant, after which we HAVE TO give her residency. The Irish Supreme Court ruled otherwise but the ECJ effectively overturned that, as EU law overides national law.

It is argued that the Irish Supreme Court judgement of January 2003 was the main factor in the decline in asylum-numbers arriving here in 2003 and early 2004. It is argued thata key factor in large numbers coming before then e.g. 11,000 in 2002, was that at that time, it was pratice to award citizenship and residency to both the parent's and the children.

Alright so the ECJ judgement doesn't oblige us to award citizenship to the mother. However it does oblige us to award residency, and that in itself is contradictory to the 2003 Supreme Court Judgement allowing deportation of the non-national parents of Irish-born children. So now residency can again be an incentive for a pregnant asylum-seeker to come to Ireland. The temptation now for an asylum-seeker in the EU facing deportation to come pregnant to Ireland as a guarantee against it is likely to be irresistable and return Ireland's asylum numbers to those seen in 2002 or higher, unless we vote "Yes" to end both citzenship and residency-tourism.

And another thing. Is it right that an asylum-seeker should be able to use our laws to gain permanent residency throughout the EU, even if another EU state has already rejected their asylum claims? It seems to me that that is a circumvention of their sovereignty which can only poison relations between this State and theirs.

arcadegame2004

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0523/citizenship.html

New opinion poll shows support for referendum

23 May 2004 21:01
A new opinion poll shows that the citizenship referendum is supported by a margin of more than two to one among voters who have made up their minds.

However, the tns/MRBI poll in tomorrow's Irish Times shows that one in five voters have not yet decided on the issue.

The poll shows 54% of voters in favour of the measure; 24% opposed; while 22% say they don't know how they will vote.

Georgiana

I have not read every word of this thread but I've read enough of it and the whole thing makes my heart heavy. I have a few observations.

Arcade repeatedly uses the phrase "these people". Thats one of the things that saddens me. He undermines certain legitimate points he makes by adopting this narrow polarised "us and them "stance. In doing so he represents a very common view which I believe needs to be seriously questioned. The first step to dehumanising people is this type of polarised thinking.

Arcade is undoubtedly right in saying there are people who avail of the current legal positon to come here to give birth. The question is how as a human being you react to that. Do you see it as the complexity it is or do you go into a basic defensive polarised mode.

I am not naive enough not to realise that there are criminals etc amongst the foreigners who arrive here. And people with diseases. And I do not advocate an open door in Ireland to allcomers. Our state is small and we must protect our economy. But I do advocate an open mind and an open heart in considering the full complexity of the issues before we make legal decisions. Migration has a great deal to do with a larger picture of global inequality.

I would like to ask Arcade if he actually knows any of "these people"personally. Has he spent a day or a week with one or more of them? He may argue that such contact is unnecessary to the forming of an opionion. Yes, it is possible to form opinions without first hand knowledge. But it is much better to form opinions based on good field research done with an open mind. I would ask people to suspend any prejudices long enought to take a real unbiased look into the eyes of that woman pushing the buggy. Consider that you are that woman for five minutes. Where is she going? What is her life? What has she come from? How is her day like or unlike your day.? Think of these things before your vote does its bit to send her and her child out of Ireland.

The current government is not presenting this referendum for the right reasons. It is a cheap stunt playing on peoples's fears and the "these people" attitude which is everywhere including inside government and officialdom. I cannot say I have an answer to the current challenges but I am totally certain that an attitude of openness and a desire to understand the full complexity of this situation from all points of view, would help. A hurred referendum to coincide with the elections is not what we need at this poing.

I'm sure many of you will consider me a naive bleeding heart, but there we are. I urge people to vote no.

arcadegame2004

Georgiana, fo your information I DO KNOW such people. I have nothing against them on a personal level. But that is not the point.

The point is that we are the ONLY EU state that allows automatic citizenship solely on the basis of birth. This means that our country can be used as a back door into the other EU states. This is undemocratic and violates their sovereignty.

Also, the Chen judgement by the European Court of Justice overturned the aspect of the Irish Supreme Court uling of January 2003 which said that being an asylum-seeker who has parented an Irish-born child/Irish citizen/EU citizen did not mean that that parent could not be deported. The Chen ruling from the ECJ specifically allowed Mr. and Mrs. Chen to remain within the EU on the grounds of "family unity", i.e. being the parents of an Irish and therefore EU citizen.

Georgina, instead of looking at this issue from a solely emotional perspective, you should try to focus on some of the larger consequences of this. Some desires are not realistic. And doing nothing to close this loophole can only realistically cause us chaos and years of poisoned relations with our EU partners.

Bear in mind the following points:

A: Because the Chen ruling makes the parents of Irish-born children IMMUNE from deportation from an EU state by conferring the child's EU residency rights on the parents, this means that ANY and ALL asylum seekers facing deportation from another EU state know that all they need do to force an EU country to let them stay indefinitely is to come to Ireland and give birth. This is clearly unsustainable and has HUGE cost implications for the Health-Service. Patients, not passports, should be the priority and purpose of our hospitals.

B: 58% of female asylum seekers arriving in this country in 2003 were pregnant on arrival. This equates to 1,893 women. The status-quo encourages them to put the lives of their unborn children at risk by travelling long distances to arrive in Ireland while pregnant. These women, therefore, are effectively putting their own children in danger for the selfish purpose of securing EU-residency for themselves. If you are really concerned for the welfare of the child, then surely you cannot defend this. Yet the current system of allowing automatic citizenship SOLELY on the basis of birth encourages such reckless behaviour. So I very much have the welfare of the child in mind in supporting this referendum.

C: These asylum-seekers have no justification for arguing that their lives are in danger unless they are allowed to stay in Ireland. They have already crossed 6 or 7 national frontiers within the EU before coming here. It is inconceivable that this could be unrelated to our stupid citizenship-law. The Chen judgement has made an already big loophole massive by GUARANTEEING the PARENTS EU-residency rights. This can only further encourage women to risk the lives of their unborn children for purely selfish gain and I find the reckless beahviour of these women disgraceful. They should abide by the Dublin Convention 1981 which requires that they apply for asylum ONLY in the first EU state of entry. It is the law. Irish nationals are expected to obey the law, and I only call for equality in insisting non-nationals do the same. Otherwise, we are making Irish people less subject to the law than non-nationals, which can only breed resentment agaisnt asylum-seekers and promote the racism we all want to avoid.

Ireland is the ONLY EU state to allow citizenship on birth grounds alone. This makes Ireland more attractive to asylum-seekers and forces our State to bear a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden. Ireland now has the second highest proportion of its population being asylum-seekers in the EU at 2.7 per thousand compared to 1.5 per thousand in the UK.

E:Our Health-Service is already overstretched and allowing unlimited numbers to come here to give birth in our hospitals solely to acquire citizenship and residency rights is a totally unacceptable drain on our Health-Service. The Left will always say "well spend more money on Health then". As usual, the Left's solution to every problem is to throw more money at it. The point is that this cynical activity of citizenship tourism and residency tourism is wasting precious resources of our Health-Service and scandalously takes up beds that more serious cases deserve, e.g. life-saving operations.

F:It is NOT racist to oppose illegal immigration. I have already said that I welcome LEGAL immigration to fill vacancies caused by skills-shortages. The work-permit system has built into it safeguards to protect the Irish workforce from cheap labour competition, namely the fact that the employer must demonstrate the unavailablility of Irish skilled labour in that sector of employment. Hence Irish people are not prevented from getting a job by the person arriving on a work-permit, especially as the person doesn't arrive in Ireland until AFTER this assessment process.

But with asylum seekers the situation is different. Because they are already here, allowing them to work would not protect the Irish taxpayer from losing their jobs to the imported cheap labour in sectors where there are no skills-shortages. As an Irish patriot, I cannot agree to put Irish jobs at risk by agreeing with those who call for all asylum-seekers to be allowed to work.

To allow such a right to work to be granted to asylum-seekers, it would only breed resentment from unemployed Irish people who know that asylum-seekers will work for FAR less than Irish people and in far worse working-conditions. And as someone staunchly opposed to racism, I am firm in my position.

Let people OBEY THE LAW. We have to why should they not have to? And if as some say there are people who don't obey the Dublin Convention because the ywant to get into an English-speaking country, then why don't they claim asylum in the UK?

arcadegame2004

Georgiana, this problem has been going on for 6 years. I hardly call that rushed. No matter how long the campaign would have been people on the "No" side would have called it "rushed". To delay this poll, especially in the light of the Chen ruling, would only allow for far more widespread abuse of the asylum-system.

There is a route for those who wish to migrate here legally. It is called the work-permit. Let those who wish to come here apply for a work-permit.

Also Georgiana, you conveniently forget that there are OTHER WAYS of allowing poorer people to come to Ireland for a better life than the asylum-system. There are 150,000 work-permits issued to non-EU nationals. There are those who can now travel freely from Eastern Europe since enlargement. Why don't you acknowledge that many are being let into this country that way? These people did things the HONEST way. They didn't come here with a cock-n-bull story that there being persecuted in safe countries like Romania or Bulgaria.

If someone from outside of the EU wants to come here for economic reasons then let them SAY SO. Let them at least TRY the proper channels.

I consider the asylum-system to be for those genuinely fleeing persecution to reach a safehaven. I will not countenance it being used for economic reasons.

But I CAN accept economic migration to fill skills shortages provided the PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS are used, as mentioned above.

Using the asylum-system for economic reasons is using it for purposes for which it is not intended. The Refugee Convention 1951 specifically states that economic-migration should not be considered a reason to be allowed to claim asylum. So we are NOT obliged to keep our laws in such a way that it can be used in that way.

I welcome those who come to fill skills-shortgages who USE THE LEGAL MEANS to do so. There is no racism in my mind. I simply want the law to be followed. Thank you.

arcadegame2004

Another point on the citizenship-issue.

An Irish citizen should be loyal to the Irish state.

Bogus asylum-seekers have thus shown themselves to be unworthy of Irish citizenship by deceiving the very people an Irish citizen should be loyal to.

Irish citizenship comes with rights AND responsibilities.

Bogus asylum seekers who invent stories of non-existant persecution in order to get state-bought free accommodation and other SW benefits from the Irish taxpayer, together with abusing Health-Service resources to just get the right to stay in this country by getting EU-residency by giving birth to a baby here, in my opinion demonstrate a woeful lack of fidelity to Ireland and are therefore unworthy of citizenship.

Traditionally in the West, honarary citizens can be created of those non-nationals who have shown fidelity to ones' country by actions that have benefited that country. Sadly, bogus asylum-seekers do their cause no favours by using deception to abuse Irish resources.

JHMEG

I've been reading this thread with interest, and all I can say it that AG2004, you are being sucked in by all the propogranda to absolutely unbelieveable proportions. Good job the rest of us aren't so gullable.

When you make a broad sweeping statement, please back it up with some hard figures. Quoting some anecdotal evidence is not suffient. Facts/figures are required.

Some questions for you:
a) Of all children in the state born last year, what proportion were born to asylum seekers? Approximately 3%.

b) Did that 3% push the maternity hospitals to the bring? No.. the merging of several hospitals, combined with under funding did.

c) You mention childrens mothers being allowed residency. What is residency? If you look it up, there is no such thing as any residency in Ireland other than temporary. Not exactly security of tenure...

d) Would you happily work in a country where the people spoke a different language and your employer (in the pig processing plant or whatever) held you work permit, thereby holding you to ransom? Neither would I. The work permit system here is the laughing stock of the world.

e) We need immigrant workers for many reasons. The health service would collapse without the 5,000 Philipino nurses for example.

f) Refugees do not receive dole, and therefore could hardly be called a burden to the social welfare system (and what about the thousands of fit and healthy Irish people on the dole who have never paid a penny tax in their lives?)

The "asylum problem" is tiny. The government have blown it completely out of proportion, and you believed them. We don't need a referendum: we need proper immigration policy.

bobbyjoe

Regarding the Chen case
Firstly there hasn’t been a ruling, the Advocate General delivered a non-binding statement in relation to cases going before the European Court of Justice.
Secondly the mother gets rights of residence not citizenship.

Have a look yourself look at the conclusions at the very end.
Chen Case

"A very young minor who is a Community national and is covered by sickness insurance covering all risks in the host Member State and who although not directly entitled to income or earnings in her own right, nevertheless has at her disposal, through her parents, sufficient resources to ensure that she will not become a burden on the finances of the host Member State, meets the requirements laid down by Article 1 of Council Directive 91/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on a right of residence and therefore enjoys a right to reside for an indeterminate period in the territory of a Member State other than that of which she is a national"


The figure of 58% pregnant asylum seekers is actually for non-national. How many of the 58% are British, EU members, Americans, people working here on work permits, foreign workers or students, spouses of Irish citizens???
Why is there no breakdown available? Ask yourself!!!!! Is it because its so tiny that it makes the Gov look stupid?


Arcadegame
“Our Health-Service is already overstretched and allowing unlimited numbers to come here to give birth in our hospitals solely to acquire citizenship and residency rights is a totally unacceptable drain on our Health-Service.”

Dept of Justice figures are 0.5 million estimated additional cost due to non-nationals.
There was a huge drop in births in the birth rate in the late 80’s and early 90’s this with increased emigration resulted in a reduction in hospital requirements. This reduction has to be fixed now due to the increase in population. No need to go changing the constitution. The Masters of the maternity hospitals asked for MORE RESOURCES thats all !!!!

The richest in the state pay no tax living abroad for a certain amount of the year, horse breeding is tax free, the richest 400 pay less tax proportionally than everyone else.
Lets have a referendum about that!!!!!

Arcadegame
“To allow such a right to work to be granted to asylum-seekers, it would only breed resentment from unemployed Irish people who know that asylum-seekers will work for FAR less than Irish people and in far worse working-conditions. And as someone staunchly opposed to racism, I am firm in my position.”

What causes Racism is making people wait years to be processed and not letting them work forcing them to look like scroungers.
Creating hysteria about “floods” and things that “might” happen even though there is NO evidence to suggest it.
Hyping a minor inconsequential legal anomaly for election purposes now THAT CREATES RACISM!

“Ireland is the ONLY EU state to allow citizenship on birth grounds alone”
So what? Citizenship laws are the sole responsibility of the member states. There has never been a request from Europe for us to change our citizenship laws

Arcadegame
“As an Irish patriot”
You want to undermine the good Friday agreement endorsed by 97% of the Irish people. If the Irish Government can change it why can't the Unionists? Paisley is going to love this. Also go against the Republican belief from the 1916 proclamation “cherish the children of the nation equally”. That’s why we don't consider some people better than others, no Lords, Sirs etc that’s the way I like it.
So you agree with David Trimble? Strange for an Irish patriot ”are we a mono-ethnic mono-cultural society” as Trimble said and caused great offence here.
Your not a patriot worried about the country you’re a nationalist in the “don’t want to see darkies or eat any of that weird food or strange music type".

Arcadegame says he’s not racist
“Bogus asylum-seekers have thus shown themselves to be unworthy of Irish citizenship by deceiving the very people an Irish citizen should be loyal to.”

Draw your own conclusions…..

cdebru

bobbyjoe i agree with everything you said i would much rather be voting on a referendum to deny citizenship to tony O'reilly who has already shown his disloyalty to this state by accepting a foreign title not to mention the complete unwillingness to live and pay tax here along with dennis obrien they dont mind earning money here
but dont want to pay tax then we have to listen to O'brien lecturing about the treatment of people with disabilities when he ran of to portugal with his ill gotten gains from esat
as much as i dislike michael o leary at least he lives and pays his tax here

whosurpaddy

Originally posted by bonkey
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

take that theory to its logical conclusion bonkey. if an asylum seeker is refused in country 1 they move to country 2, refused there, move to country 3 etc etc etc . . so basically each asylum seeker is allowed to circle to globe seeking asylum from every free country? where do you draw the line here exactly?

Georgiana

If I may say so Arcade, you seem to be rather emotionally engaged with this question youself, given the amount of time and energy you are devoting to thinking and writing about it. What's driving you?

bonkey

Originally posted by whosurpaddy
take that theory to its logical conclusion bonkey. if an asylum seeker is refused in country 1 they move to country 2, refused there, move to country 3 etc etc etc . . so basically each asylum seeker is allowed to circle to globe seeking asylum from every free country? where do you draw the line here exactly?

Fair point.....

jc

arcadegame2004

Bobbyjoe I am CERTAIN that my 58% applies for the percentage of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 who arre pregnant on arrival in Ireland.

Don't believe me? Go to this link and click on the link lieft by ai_ing http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152567&perpage=10&pagenumber=2

Then scroll down the page until you reach a heading saying "Figures for Numbers of Pregnant Asylum Seekers". Under it you will find a grid showing the numbers and percentages on a month-by-month breakdown and the overall figure. It shows clearly that in 2003, 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving here were pregnant on arrival. This figure amounts to 1,893. Bobbyjoe I urge you to read this link. If you choose not to, then that is your right, but this hardly amounts to informing yourself on the issues. These statistics are FACTs.


The figure for non-EU nationals giving birth in Irish hospitals was also 20% in 2003, even though non-nationals are only 6% of the population. And I mean NON-EU nationals, so don't try to make out some of them are UK. 5% were to other EU nationals. The 20% figure is further evidence of women arriving in Ireland pregnant to claim citizenship for their babies and residency for themselves within the EU, like Chen, though a lot, unlike her, may choose to stay here. Regardless of whether they stay here or leave after the birth, the Irish Health-Service is clearly being scandalously abused by those who wish to use it merely as a citizenship/residency facilitator. It is a gross waste of Irish taxpyer's money and that is a fact.

The point on the GFA is NONSENSE.

We are changign Article 9 not Articles 2 and 3. Articles 2 and 3 are part of the GFA whereas Article 9 is NOT. Also, the relevant changes in citizenship with regard to the GFA were intended to award citizenship to NI Nationalists. They were NOT intended to facilitate citizenship-tourism by bogus asylum-seekers.

NI Nationalists will continue to have Irish citizenship if this referendum passes. The amendment simply says that you can only be born automatically into Irish citizenship if you have at least one parent born on the island or else if one of your parents has lived in Ireland for 3 yrs prior to the birth.

NI Nationalists HAVE at least one parent born on the island, hence they keep citizenship.

arcadegame2004

"If I may say so Arcade, you seem to be rather emotionally engaged with this question youself, given the amount of time and energy you are devoting to thinking and writing about it. What's driving you?" (Georgiana)

What's driving me is anger at waste of taxpayers money by the abuse of our Health-Service by citizenship-tourists, together with a sense oh injustice that rights not afforded to Irish people are afforded to asylum-seekers who get free housing at the taxpayer's expense.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The point on the GFA is NONSENSE.

Funny...it was central to your argument not too long ago...

jc

arcadegame2004

"
quote:

---

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The point on the GFA is NONSENSE.

---

Funny...it was central to your argument not too long ago...

jc" (Bonkey)

Bonkey, I don't really understand what you mean by this? I am saying that the claims the GFA is threatened by this referednum are a load of hogwash for the reasons mentioned above.

arcadegame2004

"d) Would you happily work in a country where the people spoke a different language and your employer (in the pig processing plant or whatever) held you work permit, thereby holding you to ransom? Neither would I. The work permit system here is the laughing stock of the world.

(JHMEG)

Allowing the employee to physically keep the work-permit would encourage the copying and forging of work-permits for use by illegal-immigrants. Indeed the US has stopped issuing work-permits to Nigeria because such behaviour is rampant among Nigerians.

And why do asylum-seekers who speak English and who are claiming asylum in the UK need to come to Ireland? It's not for language reasons, as we are both English speaking countries. It's to avoid deportation from the UK by rolling the dice a second time in Ireland.

e) We need immigrant workers for many reasons. The health service would collapse without the 5,000 Philipino nurses for example.

Yes and that's why theyare here on work-permits. Has nothing to do with asylum. We can fill skills-shortgaes legally via work-permits. At least with the work-permits system the existence of a skills-shortage amongst the Irish labour-force has to be proven before those getting the work-permit can arrive in Ireland. Such protections are gone if you allow asylum-seekers to work because their availability for work is not dependent on their not being available Irish people to do the job. In other words it would lead to Irish people being priced out of work by cheap labour. Allowing that would be unpatriotic because it would keep Irish people out of work.

The richest in the state pay no tax living abroad for a certain amount of the year, horse breeding is tax free, the richest 400 pay less tax proportionally than everyone else.Let's have a referendum about that!!!

(Bobbyjoe)

Agreed!

JHMEG

Arcadegame -- millions of non-Irish people are legally entitled to work here without work permits, now that the EU has been enlarged even more. So the "patriotic" argument is null and void.

Allowing the employee to keep the work permit prevents abuse from employers. Abuse happens here, and is well documented.

For your information, if someone's asylum application is rejected and they are deported from one EU country, they are not allowed to return to the EU again, ever.

Your arguments reek of half-truths and xenophobia ("blame it on the immigrants that the health service is about to collapse").

cdebru

arcadegame

Allowing the employee to physically keep the work-permit would encourage the copying and forging of work-permits for use by illegal-immigrants. Indeed the US has stopped issuing work-permits to Nigeria because such behaviour is rampant among Nigerians.

that s crap just make a harder to copy work permit work permit scheme is bonded labour one of the reasons i think asylum seekers should not work here untill they are processed is the way we treat our legal migrants
what chance would someone who did not really have a right to be here be treated
that and it would suit employers to have cheap labour that you get rid of at anytime

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, I don't really understand what you mean by this? I am saying that the claims the GFA is threatened by this referednum are a load of hogwash for the reasons mentioned above.

Apologies...I misread something...

jc

bobbyjoe

Arcadegame
“The point on the GFA is NONSENSE.”
Ian Paisley, Sinn Fein and the SDLP seem to thinks so. First time they’ve ever agreed on anything!
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=44710&pt=n

THURSDAY 15/04/2004 18:02:46
Paisley on Irish referendum
Dublin government plans for a referendum in June on Irish citizenship prove the Good Friday Agreement is dead, the Reverend Ian Paisley claimed tonight.
By:Press Association

Seen as there is so much talk about things that might happen. Is it not true that the Unionists will use the citizenship referendum as an excuse to renegotiate the GFA.

“No sooner had the ink dried on the Government's referendum proposals than Ian Paisley's DUP were out of the blocks declaring, quite understandably from their point of view, the Good Friday Agreement up for renegotiation.”
“we will be forfeiting to a British Parliament the right to decide on who can and cannot avail of Irish citizenship in the Six Counties. That in anybody's book is a retrograde step that is way outside the intent and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.”

Arcadegame I looked at those figures:
“58% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 are pregnant on arrival here”

Its NOT on arrival here its on time of application.
The 1,893 figure refers to All applications those new and those who withdrew and reapplied.
New applicants were 638.
Can we assume that the 1,255 were here for over 9 months?
What would you do stuck in Mosney for months with no money?
So out of the 638 were these coming off the boat or plane ready to drop a sprog?
Airlines have regulations regarding heavily pregnant women flying.

“28 to 36 weeks Ryanair requires a doctor's certificate confirming that the passenger is fit and healthy and specifying the date that the baby is due. If a passenger between 28 and 36 weeks pregnant arrives to check-in without the required doctor's certificate, they must obtain same from their doctor prior to being accepted for the flight. If they cannot obtain same prior to their Check-In Deadline, their ticket may be revalidated for travel on the next available flight, after they produce the required certificate.”
“36 weeks and over Ryanair will not carry women during this period of pregnancy under any circumstances. “

From a travel site
“Remember airlines will not let you travel from 36 weeks and in some cases 26 weeks. “


The other argument regarding the Crisis in the maternity hospitals and support from the Masters.

Hospital masters deny citizenship law call
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0313/citizenship.html


Why is this referendum being rushed why hasn’t there been any proper debate about immigration here?
why isn’t there an Oireachtas All Party Committee to consider the issue?
Why no submissions from all interested groups,
Why no Green paper?



"(Bobbyjoe)

Agreed! "

Glad we agree on something!!!!

Gurgle

I've got a paperclip here with which I've been discussing the referendum since giving up trying to argue with arcadegame.

It doesn't agree with me but it does at least appear to be listening.

I do have to point out though that Irish people do get free housing, paid for by the same tax-payers as the refugees.

On the other hand, those Irish people are permitted to work. They choose to sit around all day doing SFA. But thats OK, they are allowed to do that because they were born in Ireland of Irish descent - a kind of native wellfare tourist.

I know - lets not give citizenship to any child whose parents have received more in benefits than they have paid in tax in the previous 7 years.

That would be fair, wouldn't it ?

ishmael whale

Arcadegame’s arguments are over the top, and the living proof that the best way of defeating the referendum would be to put a microphone in front of Aine Ni Chonaill.

However, there is an issue, as I’ve said in the thread below. The Chen case is an example of someone seeking to avail of this loophole to gain residency in the UK. Equally, the Masters of the main maternity hospitals have reported that women are arriving from abroad in a late stage of pregnancy often enough to be a strain on the system.

This is reasonable evidence of people seeking to exploit a loophole in our law. It equally seems reasonable to address this. Taking a step back, there seems to be no particular reason for granting citizenship to children of people who enter the country briefly to establish a device for remaining in another EU country.

Georgiana

There is a strong possibility that Arcadegame IS Aine Ni Chonaill.
Have ye thought of that? I met the woman once at my front door when she had the audacity to put herself up for election in my constituency and she never having put a foot into it before. Having identifed a constituency in which there are socially disadvanatged Irish people she tried to stir up the sort of dangerous racial arguments which Arcade is using about "foreigners creaming off our welfare entitlements" etc. She was physically run off my road by a few courageous individuals but not before she had at least one person in tears. Arcade sounds remarkably like her and I would suggest to the rest of you to stop encouraging Arcade by answering the posts. Let him/her talk to him/herself. Answering them only fuels "these people". They are not open minded enough to hear anything but their own thoughts and voices. And he/she has done a fair bit to help the "no" argument actually.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Georgiana
There is a strong possibility that Arcadegame IS Aine Ni Chonaill.
Have ye thought of that?

Yep, I suspect his/her interest in this is a little deeper than an internet debate. The constant "WE SHOULD VOTE YES" is a giveaway.

arcadegame2004

Nonsense. I am NOT Aine Ni Chonaill. This is just part of the no-side's demonisation of anyone supporting a "Yes" vote as racist. Can we please devate the Citizenship-referendum based on evidence and not on the basis of smears.

This report from the Sunday Independent proves that whatever the Masters of the Rotunda said in public, in private they admitted there was a crisi in our hospitals due to non-national births:

"Report backs up maternity crisis

ADVERTISEMENT



JIM CUSACK

DESPITE the Supreme Court judgement in February last year, the numbers of women coming here to give birth rose as the parents involved double-guessed the Government and decided that if they had a child here they would eventually be allowed entry.

This conclusion has been set out in a series of Government replies and additional letters and documents provided to Fine Gael's Jim O'Keeffe, which were lodged in the Dail Library on Friday.

It paints a bleak picture of conditions in the three Dublin maternity hospitals where staff have been assaulted and have had to deal with hundreds of late arrival pregnancies including women with HIV, hepatitis and syphilis.

A 10-page document, drawn up by senior officials in Justice and Foreign Affairs, reveals that the attraction of having a baby in Ireland, conferring citizenship on the child if not the parents, is still drawing hundreds of women here from around the world.

Despite the February 2003 Supreme Court judgement denying parents the right to automatic citizenship, the numbers of pregnant women coming here actually increased last year. The document shows that the number of births to non-nationals in Dublin's three maternity hospitals rose from 4,440 in 2002 (before the Supreme Court judgement) to 5,471 in 2003.

This represented a rise of 19.9 per cent of all births in Dublin in 2002 to 23.9 per cent in 2003. At Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, the main maternity hospital used by immigrants outside Dublin, 20.3 per cent of births were to non-nationals last year. Last year asylum applications were received from 1,893 pregnant women.

The report referred back to the concerns raised with the Government by the masters of the three Dublin hospitals. The National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street had to contend with 163 foreign women who had not booked ahead and arrived either in or near labour. The Rotunda had more with 269.

In 2002 the Dublin maternity hospitals had 1,641 non-EU mothers and last year this rose to 2,670.

The arrival of women in such late stages of pregnancy and the increasing numbers infected with hepatitis, HIV and syphilis has been causing crises in the hospitals for the past three years.

The Government's reply to Mr O'Keeffe is accompanied by copies of letters received from the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals raising concerns about the serious impact of late arrivals on the hospitals. It also includes minutes of a meeting between Michael McDowell and two of the masters, Dr Michael Geary of the Rotunda and Dr Sean Daly of the Coombe on October 18, 2002.

The minutes include the following passages: "Dr Geary said the high rate of infectious diseases among these groups has huge cost implications for the maternity hospitals. He went on to say that, having regard to all the circumstances, it was surprising that there had not been a major catastrophe within the maternity services as yet."

It adds: "Three categories of women attend the Dublin hospitals - nationals, non-nationals (mainly asylum seekers) and those who arrived from the UK, have their babies and return. This latter group generally is not involved in the asylum process. Non-nationals usually stay, on average, about two days longer in maternity facilities and the 'race card' is regularly played by many of them in seeking services. In a recent incident a midwife was knocked out by the male partner of one of the patients and the hospital and INO (Irish Nursing Organisation) are examining the matter."

And: "The hospital managers said that the strains being put on their financial, human and other resources by non-nationals (ie, due to late arrivals, high rates of HIV, hepatitis and syphilis) flow directly from immigration control issues which are solely matters for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and its agencies."

A letter dated January 20, 2003 to Health Minister Micheal Martin is also attached in which the three Dublin masters wrote: "We are writing to update you on what is currently happening in three Dublin maternity hospitals. Many women who have low-risk pregnancies are being allocated housing and given access to maternity care in areas other than Dublin.

"Unfortunately, the Department of Social Welfare and the welfare officers pay women their entitlements at 32 weeks of pregnancy. This allows them to relocate to Dublin and they arrive into any of the three Dublin maternity hospitals in labour, having received no antenatal care and we have no access to important medical information such as their HIV status. This severely compromises our ability to deliver care.

"We cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of a unified approach by the various Government departments in dealing with this problem.

"If both the Department of Justice and Department of Health recognise the difficulties of retaining many thousands of women in Dublin then the Department of Social Welfare needs to ensure that welfare payments are not being made available until after the delivery of the baby and that they can only be claimed in the region where accommodation and medical services are being provided. We hope that you will be able to do something in terms of co-ordinating the Government's approach to this problem," the letter stated.

The doctors' plea for Government action includes the rider that if the present trends were to continue, Dublin would need a fourth maternity hospital. During discussions, the Government decided it would seek a referendum in order to amend the section, inserted under the Good Friday Agreement that gives automatic citizenship to anyone born on the island of Ireland. "

So you see my views that the Health-Service is under great pressure due to citizenship-tourism are based on factual evidence. In my opinion the reason why the Masters are so coy about their views in public is that they fear being smeared as "racists" by the "No" campaign.

arcadegame2004

Nonsense. I am NOT Aine Ni Chonaill. This is just part of the no-side's demonisation of anyone supporting a "Yes" vote as racist. Can we please base our debate on the Citizenship-referendum on evidence and not on the basis of smears. I deplore Aine Ni Chonaill's use of terms to describe non-nationals as "the invasion and colonisation of ireland". I accept that that is racist language. However, that does not mean we do not have to protect our hospitals from being abused to acquire EU passports/citizenship/residency.

This report from the Sunday Independent proves that whatever the Masters of the Rotunda said in public, in private they admitted there was a crisi in our hospitals due to non-national births:

"Report backs up maternity crisis

ADVERTISEMENT



JIM CUSACK

DESPITE the Supreme Court judgement in February last year, the numbers of women coming here to give birth rose as the parents involved double-guessed the Government and decided that if they had a child here they would eventually be allowed entry.

This conclusion has been set out in a series of Government replies and additional letters and documents provided to Fine Gael's Jim O'Keeffe, which were lodged in the Dail Library on Friday.

It paints a bleak picture of conditions in the three Dublin maternity hospitals where staff have been assaulted and have had to deal with hundreds of late arrival pregnancies including women with HIV, hepatitis and syphilis.

A 10-page document, drawn up by senior officials in Justice and Foreign Affairs, reveals that the attraction of having a baby in Ireland, conferring citizenship on the child if not the parents, is still drawing hundreds of women here from around the world.

Despite the February 2003 Supreme Court judgement denying parents the right to automatic citizenship, the numbers of pregnant women coming here actually increased last year. The document shows that the number of births to non-nationals in Dublin's three maternity hospitals rose from 4,440 in 2002 (before the Supreme Court judgement) to 5,471 in 2003.

This represented a rise of 19.9 per cent of all births in Dublin in 2002 to 23.9 per cent in 2003. At Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, the main maternity hospital used by immigrants outside Dublin, 20.3 per cent of births were to non-nationals last year. Last year asylum applications were received from 1,893 pregnant women.

The report referred back to the concerns raised with the Government by the masters of the three Dublin hospitals. The National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street had to contend with 163 foreign women who had not booked ahead and arrived either in or near labour. The Rotunda had more with 269.

In 2002 the Dublin maternity hospitals had 1,641 non-EU mothers and last year this rose to 2,670.

The arrival of women in such late stages of pregnancy and the increasing numbers infected with hepatitis, HIV and syphilis has been causing crises in the hospitals for the past three years.

The Government's reply to Mr O'Keeffe is accompanied by copies of letters received from the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals raising concerns about the serious impact of late arrivals on the hospitals. It also includes minutes of a meeting between Michael McDowell and two of the masters, Dr Michael Geary of the Rotunda and Dr Sean Daly of the Coombe on October 18, 2002.

The minutes include the following passages: "Dr Geary said the high rate of infectious diseases among these groups has huge cost implications for the maternity hospitals. He went on to say that, having regard to all the circumstances, it was surprising that there had not been a major catastrophe within the maternity services as yet."

It adds: "Three categories of women attend the Dublin hospitals - nationals, non-nationals (mainly asylum seekers) and those who arrived from the UK, have their babies and return. This latter group generally is not involved in the asylum process. Non-nationals usually stay, on average, about two days longer in maternity facilities and the 'race card' is regularly played by many of them in seeking services. In a recent incident a midwife was knocked out by the male partner of one of the patients and the hospital and INO (Irish Nursing Organisation) are examining the matter."

And: "The hospital managers said that the strains being put on their financial, human and other resources by non-nationals (ie, due to late arrivals, high rates of HIV, hepatitis and syphilis) flow directly from immigration control issues which are solely matters for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and its agencies."

A letter dated January 20, 2003 to Health Minister Micheal Martin is also attached in which the three Dublin masters wrote: "We are writing to update you on what is currently happening in three Dublin maternity hospitals. Many women who have low-risk pregnancies are being allocated housing and given access to maternity care in areas other than Dublin.

"Unfortunately, the Department of Social Welfare and the welfare officers pay women their entitlements at 32 weeks of pregnancy. This allows them to relocate to Dublin and they arrive into any of the three Dublin maternity hospitals in labour, having received no antenatal care and we have no access to important medical information such as their HIV status. This severely compromises our ability to deliver care.

"We cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of a unified approach by the various Government departments in dealing with this problem.

"If both the Department of Justice and Department of Health recognise the difficulties of retaining many thousands of women in Dublin then the Department of Social Welfare needs to ensure that welfare payments are not being made available until after the delivery of the baby and that they can only be claimed in the region where accommodation and medical services are being provided. We hope that you will be able to do something in terms of co-ordinating the Government's approach to this problem," the letter stated.

The doctors' plea for Government action includes the rider that if the present trends were to continue, Dublin would need a fourth maternity hospital. During discussions, the Government decided it would seek a referendum in order to amend the section, inserted under the Good Friday Agreement that gives automatic citizenship to anyone born on the island of Ireland. "

So you see my views that the Health-Service is under great pressure due to citizenship-tourism are based on factual evidence. In my opinion the reason why the Masters are so coy about their views in public is that they fear being smeared as "racists" by the "No" campaign.