This referendum lark

Superman

Now im abit confused about this referendum and especially confused with the yes vote.

Whats the harm with letting black people come to Ireland, have a kid, raise the kid here, get it an education and contribute to society?

Like am I missing some thing ?
to me its as simple as that,

ok there might be a few spongers , but plenty of irish people already sponge (i'd say we all know a few) .
People are saying that foreigners will come in there millions, even as it stands Ireland isn't getting over-run with foreigners, theres a good few but its good for the country, we need a niced mixed society.
also i'd feel pretty bad in voting yes, because I know I'd be responsible for making sure that some kid ends up growing up in some west african shit-hole and not getting an education or a chance in life.

really why are people voting yes?

arcadegame2004

also i'd feel pretty bad in voting yes, because I know I'd be responsible for making sure that some kid ends up growing up in some west african ****-hole and not getting an education or a chance in life.

(Superman)

No you wouldn't. You'd just be making sure their asylum claim is dealt with in the first EU state they entered, as required under the Dublin Convention.

Whats the harm with letting black people come to Ireland...contribute to society?

As long as it's via LEGAL mean i.e. work-permits, I have no problem. But why does that require citizenship? Remember it is citizenship we are discussing.

Remember also that when a work-permit is issued by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, it happens in such a way as to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. This mechanism involves the granting of the work-permit being dependent on the company seeking the worker proving that there isn't sufficient Irish labour in this skill to employ an Irish person or EU national. If you allow an asylum-seeker to work, then you remove this safeguard because their presence in Ireland is not dependent on there being a skill-shortage in a particular job-sector. Hence, Irish people lose out to cheap labour, unlike the case where the person is employed via a work-permit.

Asylum is intended for people fleeing persecution, famine, and war. Not for economic-migration. The asylum-process brings nice goodies like free houses, at the taxpayer's expense, and is therefore tempatation for illegal-immigrants.

have a kid, raise the kid here, get it an education and

Hey! Where are you going to get the money to build all the hospitals we would need if we allow asylum-seekers to remain in Ireland solely on the basis of giving birth to a child? The hospitals are already at breaking point. We don't want to make it worse. Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing. The current system we have differs from EVERY other state in the EU and is therefore being used as a backdoor into the EU, i.e. people giving birth in Ireland to get an EU passport. Our Health-Service cannot and must not be turned into the Passport Office of Europe. It has enough problems already. And that's after its budget was doubled.

Ireland is a soft-touch on illegal-immigration and it's time that changed.

TuathaDeDanaan

Well im voting yes, because I dont like to see so much welfare tourism and secondly that I believe large scale immigration and diversity arent generally good things. Minaly because in many societies, from what I see around the world they tend to go hand in hand with ethnic conflict, division and class resentment.
As for the people already sponging, well I blame the socialist programs of the government, welfare should only exist for the hardest cases of those with an unfair hand in life, In its current condition it encourages the Idle to stay at home and degenerate while banging out more tax spongers.*

In regards to west africa, a lot of the most talented people leave such countries to go to west dont you feel bad that by voting no you would add to the woes of such countries by draining their best and brightest from thier economies (consider that these people have money enough that they can travel to Ireland and frequently claim to have higher education backgrounds). Theres no reason to feel bad.

* sorry, i dont think social mobility isnt that high guys. generally smart parents will have smart kids.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You'd just be making sure their asylum claim is dealt with in the first EU state they entered, as required under the Dublin Convention.

I still haven't seen a single Yay-sayer explain exactly how this works.

Lets see :


"Excuse me sir. We know you didn't come directly from there to here. You can't stay here. What was your first EU port of call".

"Ireland"

"Ah, now, come on sir. We said we know thats not true. Where was your first port of call?"

"Ireland"

Now...see....where exactly do you send these guys? Back home without them ever being offered any form of asylum?

And what if, they have no passport?


"Ah, right sir. YOu can't stay here, and we don't know which country to send you to, so its home with you. Where are you from?"

"Ireland".


So where do we send them?

And what about :


"Ah...your boat came here from France. We'll send you there"

"Hello, is this France? Ireland calling. We have an asylum seeker who came here from your country. Take him back"

"Hello Ireland. We are sorry, but you cannot prove that France was the first EU country that this person stopped in, so we are not obliged to take him. He's your problem, you sort it out."


And this is what gets me....everyone saying that there is a problem with the system seems to also be of the opinion that this referendum will fix that problem. Get rid of the citizenship thing, and no-one will come here any more. The > 70% who come here without using/abusing the citizenship laws at present...they'll all disappear along with the others. And no-one will ever try coming into the country again, either.

Nope...its all great and easy.

I mean...I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone can propose the Dublin Convention as part of the solution. If it is, then why isn't it making a difference today? Why isn't it sorting out all the allegedly bogus asylum claims from majority of asylum seekers who don't have kids born on this island?????

Arcade is presenting us with a great picture of how it will all work...except that the parts don't add up.

Remember also that when a work-permit is issued by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, it happens in such a way as to protect Irish workers from cheap labour.

The minimum wage is whats supposed to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. And the problem isn't workers willing to work for less - its employers willing to break the law to make some more cash. But we shouldn't try dealing with those employers....no....we should try and make sure that the only people they can abuse are Irish.

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

Why? Do such high birth rates not exist in other countries amongst similar-sized asylum groups of the same ethnicity/culture ?

jc

ArthurDent

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
(Superman)

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

Just listening to the 1 o'clock news - the goverment issued 48,000 work permits last year. Any chance that some of the "foreigners" are these people that are contributing to our country?

And can you explain what you mean by foreign - French, German, Polish...., oh let me guess when you say foreign you mean black?

I am so sick of the assumption that all "foreigners" are spongers - go to any of the multinational companies in the country they have all applied to allow non-nationals come and work here because they can't find the workforce here.

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
I still haven't seen a single Yay-sayer explain exactly how this works....

And this is what gets me....everyone saying that there is a problem with the system seems to also be of the opinion that this referendum will fix that problem. Get rid of the citizenship thing, and no-one will come here any more. The > 70% who come here without using/abusing the citizenship laws at present...they'll all disappear along with the others. And no-one will ever try coming into the country again, either.

I agree that this referendum if passed is not going to stop a large percentage of asylum seekers and also that there are problems with the Dublin convention but the result of voting yes qould mean that the loophole that exists cannot be exploited anymore by people looking for an Irish or an EU passport. I don't see that as a bad thing and I also think that while the number abusing this at the moment is relatively low it has the potential to become a bigger problem. Moving our rules in line with the EU is a good move here imo.

As for the problems with the Dublin convention and what can be done with it's problems, surely if people are claiming asylum they would have to state where they came from and why they feel they are persecuted. If they can't divulge this information then surely they should be jailed until they are willing to cooperate. If we know where they come from we have some way of tackling the question of how they got here and then eventually (maybe not with this person) should be able to put pressure on the countries they've travelled through.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Hey! Where are you going to get the money to build all the hospitals we would need if we allow asylum-seekers to remain in Ireland solely on the basis of giving birth to a child? The hospitals are already at breaking point.

Yep, the hospitals are bad enough as it is. Why is there not the same effort put into sorting out this problem as their is scapegoating foreign people?

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

This is clear evidence that there is more foreign people living here and having families here. Anything else is just you speculating.

bobbyjoe

If they can't divulge this information then surely they should be jailed until they are willing to cooperate.

Nice!!!!
Why not torture them too make some ass pyramids and take photo's?

Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum.

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the new Eurodac fingerprint-database which has recently been created could help find out which asylum-seekers already claimed asylum in other EU states. Thereby breaching the Dublin Convention. In my opinion though, all non-nationals entering the EU should be fingerprinted and their finger-prints should also be stored in this database (at present only asylum-seekers are fingerprinted) and that would allow us to discover whop has already entered a previous EU state. We could then send them back to the first EU state they entered.

"Why? Do such high birth rates not exist in other countries amongst similar-sized asylum groups of the same ethnicity/culture ?"

Well even if that's true, it's not on to expect the Irish taxpayer to have to pay the costs of so many foreigners givign birth. A bigger EU state would be better able to cope with it. It is clear that these people are coming here pregnant to claim citizenship for their Irish-born child and EU-residency for themselves and an EU-passport.


"The minimum wage is whats supposed to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. And the problem isn't workers willing to work for less - its employers willing to break the law to make some more cash. But we shouldn't try dealing with those employers....no....we should try and make sure that the only people they can abuse are Irish."

The fact that we have problems already merely strengthens my case that we deter others from outside this state from adding to those problems by welfare and passport/residency tourism.

I can't see why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant. It didn't happen when Ireland was a poor country. These people are not genuine asylum-seekers.

arcadegame2004

"Just listening to the 1 o'clock news - the goverment issued 48,000 work permits last year. Any chance that some of the "foreigners" are these people that are contributing to our country?" (ArthurDent)

Mostly no, because as I quoted from one of the 2 other debates today by referring to an Irish Independent article by Jim Cusack, the minutes of the meeting at whic the Masters fo the Rotunda warned of a catastrophe if the system wasn't changed, it mentioned that the majority of non-national births in our hospitals were to asylum-seekers.

"Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum." (bobbyjoe)

It is workable as I have explained above.

They were not fleeing persecution when the got on the ferry in Calais or when they drove across the NI border (as 80% of asylum-seekers do accoridng to estimates) to get here.

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Nice!!!!
Why not torture them too make some ass pyramids and take photo's?

Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum.

Did I say that? If they are applying for asylum and they don't know where or what they are fleeing from what exactly do you propose should be done? How exactly could that information be used against them?

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, the new Eurodac fingerprint-database which has recently been created could help find out which asylum-seekers already claimed asylum in other EU states.

Do they fingerprint unsuccessful applicants?

Thereby breaching the Dublin Convention.

No-one has yet shown that it is a breach of the Dublin Convention to seek asylum in more than one country. AS far as I am aware, if a nation refuses you asylum, they are supposed to return you to your country of origin.

If they do that, and you subsequently make your way to another country, are you still in breach of the Dublin Convention?

In my opinion though, all non-nationals entering the EU should be fingerprinted and their finger-prints should also be stored in this database

If you want to do that, why be in any way biased. Why not fingerprint all nationals as well?

that would allow us to discover whop has already entered a previous EU state. We could then send them back to the first EU state they entered.

Sure we could. I mean...these people declare themselves at every country they pass through...right?

You are aware that currently, in order to get into the EU they should have a valid passport, which should be stamped in their country of entry (edited: originally read "country of origin" in error)??? With that information, we should also be able to determine the first country...but guess what.....it doesn't work too well in practice.

Now, what makes you think a different type of information, but taken at the same place as the passport-stamping would occur, is going to be any different? Surely they can avoid that in exactly the same manner?

Well even if that's true,

You mean you don't know? You mean you've been drawing all these conclusions without knowing the facts on which those conclusions are based???

it's not on to expect the Irish taxpayer to have to pay the costs of so many foreigners givign birth.

And the referendum will do absaolutely nothing to change that if your unproven suggestion of citizenship-shopping proves to be grossly exaggerated and/or plain wrong. If the amendment passes, and we see no real decrease in pregnancy or asylum-seeker rates, we still have to pay the cost of so many foreigners giving birth.

So now, even more is hanging on the assumptions that you haven't checked / aren't willing to check / won't admit to having checked the full story behind at all....

It is clear that these people are coming here pregnant to claim citizenship for their Irish-born child and EU-residency for themselves and an EU-passport.

And here we go again. In a reply where you admit to not checking the actual facts that might show this to be complete bollox, and so - in effect - admitting it is nothing but a speculative notion, you resort again to stating that it is "clear".

The only thing that is clear arcade is that you have no inclination to stop making allegations that you cannot defend against critical analysis, and yet have gone overboard insulting others for exactly the same thing.

Do you not find that approach somewhat hypocritical? Does this amendment mean so much to you that truth and honesty are only worth a second seat to obtaining the desired result?

I can't see why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant. It didn't happen when Ireland was a poor country

Wow!

You harp on, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this being about the change made during the GFA, and now - all of a sudden - its because we're rich!!!

And, despite being told what figures you need to compare to be able to show why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant you admit to not being bothered to check them, and now...not being able to see any other explanations....you try and assert your conclusions must again be right - that they are coming here for citizenship.

These people are not genuine asylum-seekers.

You clearly haven't done enough research to be able to make any such statement with any degree of certainty. The gap in your information has been pointed out, and yet you couldn't be bothered checking it out...

You've a really "strong"* case there arcade, and the more you repeat yourself, contradict yourself, and employ the tactics you insulted others for employing, the "stronger"* it will get.

* sarcastic.

jc

arcadegame2004

Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states, it makes their claims to be "refugees" extremely hard to believe.

Does a genuine refugee need to board the ferry at Calais or Holyhead to escape persecution? Are they being persecuted in France or the UK?

I think not.

bobbyjoe

How exactly could that information be used against them?

I wasn't talking about where they were coming from. My point was that in some countries people don't trust the authorities and are unwilling to give information, for example Rwanda where records of people details and religion were gathered for the purpose of butchering them with machetes.

Suppose the Dublin Convention would be workable if we fingerprinted and bio analysed everyone. That would be great, lets just plug ourselves into the Matrix while we are at it and forget about free will, democracy and humanitarianism.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states, it makes their claims to be "refugees" extremely hard to believe.

You should have a look at all those countries to the west of Ireland in mainland europe that ships have to cross to in order to reach our shores.

D'OH!!! Someone's gone and moved them.

Does a genuine refugee need to board the ferry at Calais or Holyhead to escape persecution? Are they being persecuted in France or the UK?

I think not.

I'm a buit confused. Was this supposed to be a response to my last post? If so, could you actually address the issues I raised, rather than starting over with the dogma I was pointing out the flaws in???

jc

TuathaDeDanaan

what issues bonkey?, and for your 5000th post perhaps you could write something coherant. Its funny that a moderator for a politics forum could be as liberally biased and unpersuasive as you.

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
I wasn't talking about where they were coming from. My point was that in some countries people don't trust the authorities and are unwilling to give information, for example Rwanda where records of people details and religion were gathered for the purpose of butchering them with machetes.

Are you actually reading and understanding this thread? We are talking about people applying for asylum in Ireland. What does Rwanda have to do with any of this? Yes they may come from Rwanda but in order to apply for asylum in Ireland they must tell the authorities that they are coming from Rwanda and tell them why they should get asylum. If asylum seekers don't trust the Irish authorities then they wouldn't be applying for asylum here in the first place, would they?

kahlua

This might be an ignorant question but if this new referendum comes into effect and no baby born to irish parents is given automatic citizenship, does this mean that everyone will have to apply for citizenship and is that workable? Considering the government can't even get the penalty points system working properly.

bonkey

Originally posted by kahlua
This might be an ignorant question but`...

If you download the pdf here, and have a read of it, it will outline reasonably accurately what the changes will be.

That should answer your question.

jc

kahlua

Thanks, I am now fully informed. It seems like a good thing, it stops people abusing this system while still giving a chance to people who really want to become Irish citizens to meet the requirements.

gandalf

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
what issues bonkey?, and for your 5000th post perhaps you could write something coherant. Its funny that a moderator for a politics forum could be as liberally biased and unpersuasive as you.

Maybe you should read the forum rules where it clearly states that personal attacks will not be tolerated.

This is a warning I see another post like this from you and I will be very persuasive in banning you from here!

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states

Why do you use the words "impossibility" and "several" when you also say many asylum seekers also come through the UK. Couldn't someone get on a plane, fly to Heathrow and get a connecting flight to Dublin? In cases like this how many EU states have they crossed?

arcadegame2004

If that happened then they should apply for asylum in the UK, in keeping with the Dublin Convention.

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If that happened then they should apply for asylum in the UK, in keeping with the Dublin Convention.

Can I point out something which I thought was obvious but which you may have missed? I noticed you saying it a while ago but I was banned and could not post, this post reminds me of it.

Earlier in another thread you said that as there were no direct flight from some of the countries the asylum seekers were coming from proved that they came through another EU country. For me it doesn't prove that. It proves that they came through another country that has direct flights to Ireland, it is likely that this was an EU country, but not certain as you insist.

MrP

RainyDay

Isn't it a bit strange how when one wealthy Chinese lady has a baby in Belfast and we can rush into a constitutional referendum, but a judge gets off a child pornography charge on a technicality and we have to go through 'due process' and inquiries etc etc - Priorities eh?

arcadegame2004

Rainyday you should know from precedent, e.g. Roe Vs, Wade in the US, that even one legal ruling like Chen can be a precedent for big changes in the law.

arcadegame2004

But I think Rainyday that both Chen and a certain judge have abused the Irish Constitution for their own ends, albeit in different ways.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by RainyDay
Isn't it a bit strange how when one wealthy Chinese lady has a baby in Belfast and we can rush into a constitutional referendum, but a judge gets off a child pornography charge on a technicality and we have to go through 'due process' and inquiries etc etc - Priorities eh?

I thought the inquiries into the judge's case has required the Oireachtas to urgently pass two pieces of legislation, so to be honest its not really a valid point.

The only point that might arise from consideration of these two different cases is the need to provide for reasonable eventualities, rather than rushing legislation in after the event. Just as it would have been prudent for some system to have been put in place to handle the impeachment of a judge before a potential case arose, it would seem reasonable to close off the loophole highlighted by the Chen case rather than waiting to see if things go from being silly to being very silly.

RainyDay

Screwing round with the constitution in knee-jerk fashion is not a good idea (as the pro-lifers found out when their amendment in the 80's had exactly the opposite effect to their intention in the 90's). There has been no serious data presented as to what problem we are supposed to be solving here. Mullah McDowell made no attempt to get cross-party consensus - the Dail committee on constitutional reform was not consulted.

This referendum is a diversion - McDowell is simply trying to divert attention from the abysmal performance of the Govt parties in recent years in advance of the local elections. Don't fall into his trap.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by RainyDay
Screwing round with the constitution in knee-jerk fashion is not a good idea

True, which is a good reason for leaving the detailed legislation to the Oireachtas as is intended. That was the real flaw in the pro life amendment, and, as you say, they managed to undermine the very law they were seeking to defend.

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

Trebor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
True, which is a good reason for leaving the detailed legislation to the Oireachtas as is intended. That was the real flaw in the pro life amendment, and, as you say, they managed to undermine the very law they were seeking to defend.

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

a good case against it in my view is the fact that the government did not follow proper procedure when dealing with this issue. they threw it in at the last minute and put it on the same day as two other elections. whats the rush? it won't have that much effect if we leave it till the end of the year to vote on thus giving everyone enough time to consider it.

also by rejecting this amendmant maybe we can force this government into actually doing something about our immagration policy and have them enforce our laws in the same way the americans do.