This referendum lark

bobbyjoe

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

Every arguement for it has been shot down in other threads.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Every arguement for it has been shot down in other threads.

That's a rather optimistic reading of the situation. The 'yes' case is being overstated by a contributor called Arcadegame, and he is being batted about like a little kid trying to get his ball back. But 'Arcadegame is like totally out there' is not a case against the referendum (although I notice someone has this as their sig at the moment).

But no-one has been really been able to explain why a no vote is needed, and why it is so essential that citizenship should be extended to people using it as a device to live in another EU state.

MadsL

Because
1. It is just.
2. It is a simple test of citizenship.
3. It has a historical precedent.
4. There are better and more effective way to combat asylum abuses.
5. Voting YES will not change the amount of non-nationals coming to Ireland as much as you may wish it to.
6. It makes more sense to give citizenship to those born here than to
a) 3rd generation Americans who have not even set foot on Irish soil
b) children of Irish passport holders that FF sold passports too in exchange
for a million quid.
c) Those 'a bit good at football'
7. I prefer the test of citizenship to be 'where were you born' as opposed to 'whatever FF think in future'.

arcadegame2004

MadsL, I hope you do not take this as an offence. But I would like to point out something.

Now, I am NOT attacking your nationality. But in your country, the UK, the automatic right to citizenship solely on the basis of birth is not applicable.

So if its not acceptable for your country, why should it be for ours?

arcadegame2004

It is just

Why?

2. It is a simple test of citizenship.

In other words, it makes it too easy to get citizenship, especially for organised criminals.

3. It has a historical precedent.

Although it was part of our law as early as 1921, no-one really cared until Ireland became rich and enshrined jus-soli into our Constitution. Now our hospitals are under siege and when circumstances change, so too do certain aspects of law to cope with it, especially when the law becomes the source of the problem. With 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age being pregnant on arrival last year, and with Mrs.Chen's antics I feel our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered.

4. There are better and more effective way to combat asylum abuses.

Like what? I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals. The birth matter is a huge part of the incentive to come here.

5. Voting YES will not change the amount of non-nationals coming to Ireland as much as you may wish it to.

Have a crystal-ball do you? I feel that it will. This is not about race. It is about unsustainable pressure on our Health-Service and about ending absue of our laws by non-nationals.

6. It makes more sense to give citizenship to those born here than to a) 3rd generation Americans who have not even set foot on Irish soil
b) children of Irish passport holders that FF sold passports too in exchange
for a million quid.
c) Those 'a bit good at football'

It's actually equally ludicrous as b and c. But at least 3rd-generation Americans don't have the economic incentive to flood Ireland's hospitals etc.

7. I prefer the test of citizenship to be 'where were you born' as opposed to 'whatever FF think in future'.

That argument assumes that FF will always be in power which is silly.

RainyDay

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.

Hi Ishmael - There doesn't have to be case against it! The Govt are proposing the change, so they need to present the case for the change. They have presented no hard data to identify what problem we are really trying to solve here.

And for the record, I'm not happy to leave matters of citizenship in the hands of the Oireachtas. While McDowell's current proposal (must be resident for 3 years) is not totally unreasonable, who knows what the next amendment to these rules will be in five years time?

arcadegame2004

Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

There almost doesn't need to be a case made for this, such is the obviousness of its necessity to all but the most bleeding of bleeding heart lefties who think anything short of an open-door is fascism. They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration. (I am in no way linked to that body and I agree that some of their language is extreme. But freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech even for those with whom we politically disagree). Yet they have the cheek to call these groups fascist. Fascism involved breaking up meetings of political opponents so I find this ironic.

We are entitled to debate this issue. We are entitled to restrict illegal immigration and the "No" sides only real argument is that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist. This is deeply insulting the 54% who say they will vote "Yes". Another poll came out a few days ago showing that in Leinster there is 62% support for this proposal. The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

The arguments though for a "Yes" are clear.

A: 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age are pregnant on arrival. Go to the "Immigration Referendum" thread and go to ai_ing's links to see the proof of this. 1,893 pregnant woman are the numerical equivalent of this and this number is also mentioned. This has been pretty consistent since 1998 so clearly there is a link with the current Constitutional position.

B: The Masters of the Rotunda, in spite of their public coyness, DID call for a change in the law. The minuites of their meetings with Michael McDowell and Michael Martin clearly show this. They warned the latter thata 4th Maternity-Hospital might have to be built in Dublin to cope with the flood of non-national births.

C:These are NOT Filipino nurses or Brazilian factory workers giving birth. Look at my thread on the Irish Examiner report yesterday by an obstetrician explain this.

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

It doesn't matter how many times you continue with this mantra. Saying something over and over again will not make it true.

They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration.

Their idea of immigration control would consist of deporting all foreigners and not allowing any more in from what I can gather.

The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

Ever hear of saying involving a Pot slandering another common item found in most kitchens?

The arguments though for a "Yes" are clear.

You seemed to have left out "Ireland for the Irish" from that list.

EDIT: I missed this little gem somehow!

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

RainyDay

Hi arcadegame2004

It's a bit hard to take seriously your complaints about Yes voters being labelled as racists when you play the same game yourself, labelling No voters as bleeding heart lefties.

Just for your information, I would bet a fiver that I spent more time in maternity hospitals over the last year than you (as my wife/child were in hospital for about 50 nights in the last year). I didn't find the hospital to be 'full' of non-nationals. There was a fair contingent of African & Oriental mothers (my own guess would be something like 20%-30%), but that's just my own personal experience, and it is no basis for making an important decision like this.

That Dept of Justice document is interesting - but the data presented is quite limited. It refers to one specific 6 month period only, and to be honest, I would be somewhat sceptical about accepting documents from Mullah McDowell's own Dept as independent.

I really don't see the relevance of the statements from the Masters of the maternity hospitals either. Firstly, from the interviews I heard, they had no formal data collection processes in place, and the figures being bandied around were 'off the cuff' figures. Secondly, I wouldn't be too keen on accepting advice on constitutional citizenship from the Masters of the maternity hospitals. I would accept their advice on running maternity hospitals, but the matters involved here are outside of their professional expertise. Let them tell us their experiences, and let society as a whole decide where to go.

I'm not saying that there is no problem here. Maybe their is. I am saying that there has been insufficient data and insufficient debate on this matter. Rushing into constitutional changes is not a good idea, and we may well live to regret the haste.

PS I'd love the see the maths to show how 2k non-national births will lead to native Irish becoming a minority.

arcadegame2004

Rushing into constitutional changes is not a good idea, and we may well live to regret the haste.

SIX YEARS since the GFA? You call that a rush?

There was a fair contingent of African & Oriental mothers (my own guess would be something like 20%-30%),

Correct. And remember only 6% of the population are supposed to be non-national. Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

You are very much mistaken if you think that it's only your personal experience that is's 20-30%.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Correct. And remember only 6% of the population are supposed to be non-national. Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

Maybe the people he saw were Irish citizens? Crazy I know, but some Irish people aren't members of the Ayrian race.
Maybe they're having babies because people tend to reproduce, another "bleeding heart leftie" statement I know.

MadsL

Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

taking over the hospitals .... Again no sources for this...
People are sick and tired, the health service is under pressure, and it is because of lack of funding NOT asylum applications.

When are the YES campaign going to come clean and admit that the numbers of asylum applications are actually FALLING,

Applications
No. of new applications for a declaration as a refugee *
2001 - 10316
2002 - 11598
2003 - 7483
2004 to end April - 1466

Total No. of applications for a declaration as a refugee *
2001 - 10325
2002 - 11634
2003 - 7900
2004 to end April 1633

source ORAC

There almost doesn't need to be a case made for this

There most certainly does, there should be a stronger case made for changing a constitution than for leaving the status quo.

They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration. (I am in no way linked to that body and I agree that some of their language is extreme. But freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech even for those with whom we politically disagree). Yet they have the cheek to call these groups fascist. Fascism involved breaking up meetings of political opponents so I find this ironic.

Who is They? Please explain. And post your sources.

We are entitled to debate this issue. We are entitled to restrict illegal immigration and the "No" sides only real argument is that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist.

When have I said that anyone who agrees with you is a racist?

"entitled to restrict illegal immigration" - this is not the focus of the referendum

The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

Really. Maybe we should try the YES tack and drag in everything from Al Qeeda to Columbine...:rolleyes:

A: 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age are pregnant on arrival. Go to the "Immigration Referendum" thread and go to ai_ing's links to see the proof of this. 1,893 pregnant woman are the numerical equivalent of this and this number is also mentioned. This has been pretty consistent since 1998 so clearly there is a link with the current Constitutional position.

would it kill you to post a link! :rolleyes:

And as I pointed out in the same thread your 1,893 is a drop in the ocean of the 20,000 Irish who emigrated the same year. http://www.cso.ie/publications/demog/popmig.pdf

B: The Masters of the Rotunda, in spite of their public coyness, DID call for a change in the law. The minuites of their meetings with Michael McDowell and Michael Martin clearly show this. They warned the latter thata 4th Maternity-Hospital might have to be built in Dublin to cope with the flood of non-national births.

They denied it. http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0313/citizenship.html

Post me a link to the minutes. Can't seem to find it. Odd that.

C:These are NOT Filipino nurses or Brazilian factory workers giving birth. Look at my thread on the Irish Examiner report yesterday by an obstetrician explain this.

You mean the one where the obstetrician in question, Dr Paul Byrne explains that the problems are mostly (90%) unbooked Irish.

They tend to be either terrified teenagers, living at home and afraid to tell anyone, or women from disadvantaged backgrounds. They could be drug addicts, or women not keen on being pregnant and in poor social circumstances

You can read the original report here unmolested by the Irish Examiner's slant.
Nowhere does the 'good doctor' put the blame on refugees in this study. In fact of the 11,522 deliveries "Eleven of the unbooked women were refugees who had newly arrived in Ireland and a further nine were refugees who had booked in their country of origin but arrived to the Rotunda with no record of this care. "

You mean the thread where the 'report' is so obviously hokum that you haven't bothered to reply to the points made.

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

You are a minority already. You represent about 3.5 million of the 70 odd million that claim to be 'Irish' - that doesn't seem to undermine you national identity - whatever that is..??

On your other devastating assessments of the No argument;

1. Why?

Because it is an historical, simple and logical test of nationality.

2. In other words, it makes it too easy to get citizenship, especially for organised criminals.
WTF?? What 'organised criminals' - show me a shred of evidence of this in Ireland...the most organised criminals I've seen in seven years here have been in FF!

3. Although it was part of our law as early as 1921, no-one really cared until Ireland became rich and enshrined jus-soli into our Constitution. Now our hospitals are under siege and when circumstances change, so too do certain aspects of law to cope with it, especially when the law becomes the source of the problem. With 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age being pregnant on arrival last year, and with Mrs.Chen's antics I feel our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered.

"hospitals are under siege" - nonsense, there is a baby boom and that is an Irish problem.

"our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered" - unilaterally, thus jeapodising the GFA. brilliant - all for less than 2,000 people :rolleyes:

4. Like what? I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals. The birth matter is a huge part of the incentive to come here.

"I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals" - great idea, everyone speak Irish and bingo no more problem. Can't you figure it out yet, it is not the citizenship law that attracts asylum-seekers, it's the language.

5. Have a crystal-ball do you? I feel that it will. This is not about race. It is about unsustainable pressure on our Health-Service and about ending absue of our laws by non-nationals.

Look at the money numbers. Health service spending is being cut. Scary non-nationals get the blame. FF get re-elected.

"absue of our laws by non-nationals" - what laws are being broken?

6. "flood Ireland's hospitals " - you are a stuck record...prove this with figures.

3rd gen Americans - will you be removing this right as well then. Your cousins in the states won't be impressed with you.

7. That argument assumes that FF will always be in power which is silly.

I agree. The concept of FF always in power is silly - but the point is that you hand over the control of the right of citizenship to whichever party is in power. Isn't it better that the people of Ireland make a constitutional decision that is free of party interference after the fact.

Finally...

But in your country, the UK, the automatic right to citizenship solely on the basis of birth is not applicable.

Two points. The first of which is that you make the classic assumption that I will immediately leap to the defence of 'my country' - it is not 'my country' - I haven't lived there in over a decade.

Secondly, I don't support this policy, but I do see some historical reasons for this. Firstly the UK is a former colonial power and as such has a significantly larger potential population of 'subjects' many of which chose to travel (or were invited) to the UK and become 'citizens'. There have been a number of extensions of the rule, not the least of which was the freedom of travel afforded to the Irish citizens who have, since independence, remained free to reside in the UK and (even as non-citizens) to vote in UK elections and vice-versa. It is estimated that 1 in 5 Londoners have an Irish parent. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Irish citizens had the right to be treated as 'British

Equally up until 1962 there were no restrictions at all until the Notting Hill riots of 1958 proved the issue in the Uk and racist agitation forced the legislation of the The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1961.

The UK has always had a bi-polar approach to citizenship, given the list of countries that comprised the Commenwealth - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon, plus special provision in the Act for citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

To compare the citizenship history and background of Ireland and the UK is hardly like with like - is it now?

arcadegame2004

These figures are for the period BEFORE the Chen judgement. Your figures for asylum-applications only cover the period up to April. According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

Also, these figures were taken before the Chen judgement. That judgement, which ruled that the parents of Catherine Chen derived EU-residency from that baby's Irish/EU citizenship sets a dangerous precedent. No doubt huge numbers of illegal immigrants facing deportation from mainland EU and especially the UK will now flock to our shores.

May I add that in spite of the decline, the numbers of non-national births has NOT fallen. It has actually risen since 2003. And it is only May!

Do you want us to wait for the huge surge in numbers later in the year? Prevention is better than cure.

And anyway the principle of automatic citizenship on the basis of being solely of being born on this island is in itself unacceptable to me.

And we managed well enough when Dail Eireann had the power to decide citizenship law anyway, prior to 1998. It was not until then that the flood started.

Oh, and Frank Grimes, it is ludicrous to suggest that a large number of non-Caucasians giving birth in our hospitals are Irish-born.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Oh, and Frank Grimes, it is ludicrous to suggest that a large number of non-Caucasians giving birth in our hospitals are Irish-born.

Don't twist my words, I said Irish citizens.

MadsL

According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

Oh, so I publish the latest figures up until what...29 days ago. you clearly with much more up to date information have the latest figure that have 'surged'. Go on then - what are they? Publish a link for once in your life. Where are your figures for this.

non-national births

The phrase non-national is meaningless and you know it. Many 'non-nationals' have a perfect legal right to residence and ultimately citizenship. their children will likely become citizens whether you like it or not. Shame on you for trotting out the pityful 'non-national' nonsense

MadsL

McDowell + "significant surge"

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=McDowell+%2B+%22significant+surge%22&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIE

Prisions yes, Births - err no.

So what did he actually say?

MadsL

Breakingnews.ie

Your Search Keyword(s): McDowell + "significant surge"
Translates to: mcdowell AND "significant surge"
Category : All
Viewing Records : 1 to 0 of 0
SORRY, No results were found matching your criteria.

MadsL

ireland.com
http://www.ireland.com/cgi-bin/dialogserver?SAVEDB=all&QUERY00=McDowell+%2B+%22significant+surge%22&STARTDATE0=&ENDDATE0=&DB=all&ORGANISE_CODED=&THRESHOLD=90&Search.x=57&Search.y=10
Searching all section(s) . No documents with a score of more than 90 found

dah, I know...he said it when he was round your gaff for a cup of tea...

RainyDay

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
SIX YEARS since the GFA? You call that a rush?

I guess I must have missed the six years of debate, consideration, review with all-party committee on the constitution on this topic then. That's the only logical explanation - as the possibility that Mad Mullah McDowell would try another diversionary tactic (like the one that doubled the PD's Dail seats in the last general election) is just out of the question, isn't it?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

Congratulations on your telepathic ability to read their minds? Is there just a chance that one or two of the non-national mothers just might want their babies to be born in a safer hospital? Nah - sure what kind of crazy mother would want that.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You are very much mistaken if you think that it's only your personal experience that is's 20-30%.

I didn't comment on whether my experience was high or low, so it's just a little strange that you feel the need to point out possible errors in items that I haven't actually specified.

Victor

Originally posted by RainyDay
Is there just a chance that one or two of the non-national mothers just might want their babies to be born in a safer hospital?

Looking at the report on unbooked mothers, medical safety would appear to be a distinct factor - they are medical tourists, not citizenship tourists.

ishmael whale

If fairness, Madsl has actually tried to put a case for citizenship based on place of birth. Unfortunately, the arguments put forward do not really address why we should extend citizenship to people using Irish citizenship as a device. Teh passports for sale business actually makes more sense to the extent that at least an Irish dog food factory got some investment (no, I'm not advocating this policy - just pointing out that at least their is some connection.) Ditto football players and, misty eyed folk that we are, all those old songs about the Old Bog Road and the Stone Outside Dan Murphy's Door mean we have to acknowledge our emigrant communities. And there was a time when what kept the a**e in the nation's trousers was emigrant's remittances. But granting Irish citizenship as a device to allow someone to live in France, say, is just plain weird. It simply has nothing to do with us.

I note Madsl says "There are better and more effective way to combat asylum abuses." I don't particularly see this as an asylum issue, but would be interested to here what you have in mind here. Another contributor from the 'no' camp seemed to suggest an alternative was placing restrictions on pregnant women entering the country (and seemed to think the only way they might enter the state was by air). It seems to me what is proposed is a simple and direct way of fixing a hole in our citizenship laws, without the need for strange immigration procedures screening women to see if they're pregnant and interrogating them if they are. And to clarify, I have not expressed any particular wish to change the amount of non-nationals coming to Ireland. I simply want to ensure that the granting of Irish citizenship is not an empty formula.

The choice is not between 'where were you born' as opposed to 'whatever FF think in future'. Laws are passed by the Oireachtas, not FF. Membership of the Oireachtas is decided by popular vote. Yes, people have to pick from the menu, and yes, the opposition are not exactly offering a stunning alternative. But anyone suggesting that, for example, the range of candidates on offer in the local and European elections is so limited as to make FF the only choice is just plain weird.

Originally posted by RainyDay
Hi Ishmael - There doesn't have to be case against it!

The case for it is that we didn't intend to grant citizenship as a device to children of people with no particular link to the place, who want to live elsewhere in the EU. That is pretty clear. To advocate a no vote is to say we do want to grant citizenship as a device to children of people with no particular link to the place, who want to live elsewhere in the EU. That needs an explanation.

Originally posted by RainyDay
And for the record, I'm not happy to leave matters of citizenship in the hands of the Oireachtas. While McDowell's current proposal (must be resident for 3 years) is not totally unreasonable, who knows what the next amendment to these rules will be in five years time?

I can only point you to my answer above. The Oireachtas are not invaders from Mars. We elect them.

RainyDay

Originally posted by ishmael whale
To advocate a no vote is to say we do want to grant citizenship as a device to children of people with no particular link to the place, who want to live elsewhere in the EU.

I'm not sure why you seem to want to impose opinions on No voters without any basis. Perhaps it makes it easier for you to ignore their points of view - but that doesn't make it right. As pointed out above, I'm voting No because I believe that has been insufficient debate & discussion on this important issue, not because of any particular views I hold on citizenship.

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The Oireachtas are not invaders from Mars. We elect them.

By which logic we should dispose of the Constitution entirely and let the Oireachtas decide our fate. But I guess McDowell is probably a couple of years away from that suggestion yet.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by RainyDay
I'm not sure why you seem to want to impose opinions on No voters without any basis. Perhaps it makes it easier for you to ignore their points of view - but that doesn't make it right.

I'm not ignoring 'no' voters' points of view, I'm trying to find out what that point of view is. Some 'yes' supporters have made excessive claims about numbers of persons abusing the present system, and 'no' voters seem to be concentrating on simply pointing out that such extreme descriptions are excessive. But I haven't seen much 'no' voter opinion on the substantive issue - why citizenship should be given in a case like Chen where there is no real link to Ireland. Any time I have raised this particular point it has been typically greeted by a wall of silence or evasion.

Originally posted by RainyDay
As pointed out above, I'm voting No because I believe that has been insufficient debate & discussion on this important issue, not because of any particular views I hold on citizenship.

This is a little evasive. If you feel there is insufficient debate on the issue, then debate it (although I will be vanishing off the scene for the next few days.) And there has already certainly been far more debate on this referendum than there was on, for example, the referendum on the International Criminal Court.

Originally posted by RainyDay
By which logic we should dispose of the Constitution entirely and let the Oireachtas decide our fate. But I guess McDowell is probably a couple of years away from that suggestion yet.

This is really just trying to set up a straw man. Clearly it doesn't follow that leaving one matter to the Oireachtas means that all matters should be left to the Oireachtas. In particular, provisions relating to the fundamental powers of each of the branches of government are best placed in the constitution - it would be hard for the courts to be seen as independent if they were solely dependant on an Act of the Oireachtas for their powers. However, that is not to say that a layer of detail relating to the administration of the courts might not be left to the Oireachtas - in much the same way as this referendum leaves a layer of detail to the Oireachtas.

RainyDay

Originally posted by ishmael whale
This is a little evasive. If you feel there is insufficient debate on the issue, then debate it (although I will be vanishing off the scene for the next few days.) And there has already certainly been far more debate on this referendum than there was on, for example, the referendum on the International Criminal Court.

Your proposal doesn't solve the problem, Ishmael. Regardless of how extensively I debate this matter, or others on boards.ie debate this matter, it simply hasn't got expensive public/media attention, primarily because it got swamped behind the Euro & local elections. It really deserves a much broader, more considered debate for such an important issue.

MadsL

why citizenship should be given in a case like Chen where there is no real link to Ireland.

How real would you like the ground you walk on to be? FFS there is little more real than being physically born on the island !! How much more of a link should there be - Have red hair and be called Mary :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

It seems obvious to me that if you give EU-residency rights solely on the basis of being born in Ireland, then everyone seeking so-called "asylum" in the EU will try to get here preggers.

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It seems obvious to me that if you give EU-residency rights solely on the basis of being born in Ireland, then everyone seeking so-called "asylum" in the EU will try to get here preggers.

I can only assume you have me on ignore but if not...

Please explain how having a child here (who would be an Irish citizen) can guarantee your stay here.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It seems obvious to me that if you give EU-residency rights solely on the basis of being born in Ireland, then everyone seeking so-called "asylum" in the EU will try to get here preggers.

How many times will you continue to misrepresent the situation??/

Firstly, the child gets citizenship and residency rights. The parents, at this point in time get nothing. Nada. Zip.

If the Chen judgement becomes final, then the parents will get residency rights if they are sufficiently well off that they will not be a burden to the state.

So how it can be clear in any rational manner that people will "get here preggers" to abuse this is beyond me. What is there to abuse?

Oh...I forgot...there's the passport that the kid isn't eligible to get for something like 6 years, that could be used for organised crime and/or Al Qaeda operations. Yeah. Thats it. Its all a 10-year plan to turn Ireland into the new Triad/Al Qaeda international headquarters!!!

We're doomed, DOOMED!!!!

jc

jc

MadsL

Bonkey, can I propose that we lock this thread as there are two others more or less on the same theme.

Any seconders?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Hobbes
Please explain how having a child here (who would be an Irish citizen) can guarantee your stay here.

Well with only 5% being deported last year it is clear that it must help many get the right to stay here. The Dublin Convention alone makes over 90% of our asylum seekers bogus. Look at the map.

And the Chen ruling may mean that anyone giveing birth in Ireland gets EU residency rights. Had Chen chosen to live in the South we could not have deported her. Also, her husband got EU residency rights. I suspect the pregger Nigerian women or those who were pregnant and gave birth here to claim citizenship for their babies will now get their lawyers to cite the "family unity" aspect of the Chen ruling to demand the right to bring over the fathers of their kids.

Hundred thousand welcomes (Cead mile failte)? No. What's going on now is more like 2 hundred thousand welcomes when you consider the price of a house on average in this state, or 700 hundred thousand considering the average price of a house in Dublin. I mention this in respect of the free houses the so-called 'asylum' seekers get.