"Yes" landslide

Trebor

Originally posted by Lioness
yes to both Q's.
i don't think its correct to say that just because you live in a country, therefore you are a true citizen of that country. If I go and live in France do I become French? Or vice versa? It doesnt make sense.

would you agree that your child born when in france is french if you continues to live there? even though you raise them the same as if you where in ireland? i.e. you raise them in irish culture.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
You want me to disprove legislation that doesn't exist yet!... this is like arguing with a 5 year old.

Don’t be such an imbecile. I do not want you to try to disprove legislation that doesn't exist yet - I am trying to get you to understand that the law is a living document. When we have a situation where the law is an ass, we legislate to change it. Sometimes we’ll go as far as changing the Constitution. If it’s broken we fix it. No law is perfect, and that is why it is forever changing and adapting to the Society it is in.

The Constitution is the principle legal document of the state, it is not the total codex of law. We ‘fix’ it every day. That’s why there are constitution lawyers.

What was removed was a principle of citizenship based upon geographical accident, which was frankly a good thing to get rid of. Beyond that it is the purpose of legislation and not Constitution to cover the bases - on an ongoing basis.

What happens if the mother dies before birth?

She does not cease to be the child’s mother just because she’s dead. The child would still have at least one Irish parent regardless.

What happens if an non-national mother and Irish father have child together in Ireland but out of wedlock and the mother dies or refuses to acknowledge the father. The child is not Irish?

And if a non-national mother and Irish father have child together in outside Ireland but out of wedlock and the mother dies or refuses to acknowledge the father. The child is not Irish? Of course, but not because of where it was born, but because of the parents.

Perhaps we should change the constitution to allow anyone who has any verbal claim of birthright to become a citizen, just in case..? :rolleyes:

BTW these two events happen all the time

Such cases do occur all the time, but they frankly have nothing to do with the amendment. The only case I’ve heard that could apply is of the Chinese girl who, losing her Chinese citizenship has been left technically without one. Such a case does not occur all the time.

Originally posted by pete
Obviously you are privy to the inner workings of my brain.

Let’s not exaggerate - I wouldn’t have gone as far as to call it a mind.

Eh, no.

Yes. It’s another form of incitement to hatred, tbh. A.K.A. taking a cheap shot.

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Let’s not exaggerate - I wouldn’t have gone as far as to call it a mind.

Yes. It’s another form of incitement to hatred, tbh. A.K.A. taking a cheap shot.

Why the personal attacks, dude? You're bumming me out here.

Originally posted by bobbyjoe

Definitions of inhabit on the Web:
make one's home or live in;
be present in; be inside of
live or dwell in.
To dwell or live in; occupy.
live in or on, as in: Many rare animals inhabit the island.
to live somewhere.

Looks like Simu's definition to me and I'd agree with him or her.

That would make the chinese ambassador to Ireland Irish...
I don't think its that simple...

pete

Originally posted by Earthman
That would make the chinese ambassador to Ireland Irish...
I don't think its that simple...

Strictly speaking, aren't embassies / diplomatic residences considered to be part of the territory of their own country?

Depends on where they live,maybe Victor could clarify, as I thought it was only the embasy itself that was the foreign countries territory.
If not are all foreign staff of all foreign embasies that don't live in the diplomatic residence Irish?
By Bobby Joe's and Simu's definition?

If I may be so bold, but Bonkey the main moderator of this forum lives and works in Switzerland, is he( or does he consider himself ) Irish or Swiss now *
To complicate this new found pedanticism on this thread,if I get a job in NI, do I soon have to concider my self just as British as Irish, it is after all legally a part of the United Kingdom...( I'd prefer just Irish )



*I realise how confusing that question may read as Swiss is also moderator here

Jivin Turkey

Can I pose a question to everyone? If you were born while on a short holiday in a foreign country, say Germany, who you have any desire to be German? Or would you consider yourself ot be Irish?

I would condsider myself Irish.

Trebor

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
Can I pose a question to everyone? If you were born while on a short holiday in a foreign country, say Germany, who you have any desire to be German? Or would you consider yourself ot be Irish?

I would condsider myself Irish.

i would consider myself irish because i was raied in ireland
but why would you consider yourself irish? because you were raised here or because your parents were irish?

Lioness

explain the difference between a logical OR and a logical AND

I said previously that being born and bred here constituted being Irish, an Irish person. The def, b.joe presented also stated this. i.e an Irish person: a NATIVE or inhabitant of Ireland. (I have alredy given the def for native.)
So, BOTH Simu and I were correct.

I'n going away to Galway for the weekend and I'm going now so I've no time to draw nice little Venn diagrams.

good. You added ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to this debate, besides petty, childish comments. And your supposed to be a moderater. :rolleyes:

That would make the chinese ambassador to Ireland Irish...

That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

If you were born in France wouldn't you feel some connection to it even if both your parents were Irish?

yes I would, but the strength of that 'connection' depends on how long I would be there...

would you agree that your child born when in france is french if you continues to live there? even though you raise them the same as if you where in ireland? i.e. you raise them in irish culture.

if I raised them there, then yes they would be French, but they would also be Irish!! There is a grey area.. Its just not black and white...:dunno:

Tuars

Originally posted by The Corinthian

The Constitution is the principle legal document of the state, it is not the total codex of law. We ‘fix’ it every day. That’s why there are constitution lawyers.

What was removed was a principle of citizenship based upon geographical accident, which was frankly a good thing to get rid of.

What was also removed was the obligation to consult the Irish people about further changes to the definition of citizenship. I don't think that's a trivial issue. In fact I think that is more fundamental.

Trebor

Originally posted by Tuars
What was also removed was the obligation to consult the Irish people about further changes to the definition of citizenship. I don't think that's a trivial issue. In fact I think that is more fundamental.

no, only to consult us about the citizenship of non-nationals in ireland they cannot change the citizenship of an already irish citizen nor their children.

Tuars

Originally posted by Trebor
no, only to consult us about the citizenship of non-nationals in ireland they cannot change the citizenship of an already irish citizen nor their children.

Yes, we have the parent clause obviously but we've given the government a lot more power to decide citizenship than I think is justified when you think of the problem that we are trying to solve.

That's implicit in TC's 'sh!t happens' argument. 'Sure we'll legislate for it when it happens, whatever it is'. I don't like this ad-hoc approach and I don't like giving the government such a free hand on such a fundamental concept as citizenship.

Trebor

Originally posted by Tuars
Yes, we have the parent clause obviously but we've given the government a lot more power to decide citizenship than I think is justified when you think of the problem that we are trying to solve.

That's implicit in TC's 'sh!t happens' argument. 'Sure we'll legislate for it when it happens, whatever it is'. I don't like this ad-hoc approach and I don't like giving the government such a free hand on such a fundamental concept as citizenship.

i don't agree with giving the govrnt control like this either but it's best to make sure we stay clear on what they actually can effect.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by Trebor
i would consider myself irish because i was raied in ireland
but why would you consider yourself irish? because you were raised here or because your parents were irish?

Probably a bit of both.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by sceptre
Assuming you're all happy to run with dictionary definitions then, anyone else want to explain the difference between a logical OR and a logical AND to Lioness?

I'n going away to Galway for the weekend and I'm going now so I've no time to draw nice little Venn diagrams.

The funniest thing about this is before you start slagging anyonne about spelling or grammar, you should note that "I'n" doesnt make any sense. You should learn how to spell before you even think about going near the Venn Diagrams.

pete

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
The funniest thing about this is before you start slagging anyonne about spelling or grammar, you should note that "I'n" doesnt make any sense. You should learn how to spell before you even think about going near the Venn Diagrams.

Could you point out exactly where in that post anyone's spelling or grammar was criticised?

p.s. there's only two N's in "anyone".

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Don’t be such an imbecile. I do not want you to try to disprove legislation that doesn't exist yet - I am trying to get you to understand that the law is a living document.

The law is a living document handled by the Government.

The Constitution is a declaratoin of what the government is allowed to do with relation to legislation.

If you remove restrictions from the Constitution and place them solely in the hands of legislation, then you threaten fundamental rights, because the legislation cannot be legally challanged.

But of course I am just paraniod. There has never been a case of the government attempting to enact legislation that goes against constitutional fundamentals ..... oh wait :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
When we have a situation where the law is an ass, we legislate to change it.

Who legislates to change it? There is no obligation on the government to change any laws they enact. The only protection is the Constitution, which is the whole point of the document. Remove it from the Constitution and you loose the fundamental method for protecting the people against un-just laws.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Sometimes we’ll go as far as changing the Constitution. If it’s broken we fix it. No law is perfect, and that is why it is forever changing and adapting to the Society it is in.

But we didn't "fix" it, we made it even more unclear.

The Constitution is the principle legal document of the state, it is not the total codex of law. We ‘fix’ it every day. That’s why there are constitution lawyers.

The Constitution is the protection of the people against the introduction of new law that harms the people.

She does not cease to be the child’s mother just because she’s dead. The child would still have at least one Irish parent regardless.

Not unless it can be proven the mother is an Irish citizen. How is a 5 minute old child supposed to prove that his dead mother is Irish?

Such cases do occur all the time, but they frankly have nothing to do with the amendment.

What do you base that on?

simu

Originally posted by pete
Strictly speaking, aren't embassies / diplomatic residences considered to be part of the territory of their own country?

Well, I know that in th US, the US-born children of Ambassadors are exceptions to the jus soli rule.

Explained here

Saviour_Angel

very good points made by all esp Lioness but i wud tend to sway and go wit a No vote.

The Irish ppl dur-n hard times went abroad and were welcomed in America and other such country-s include-n England.
Y in times now, where other ppl in other county-s hav probs, dat we r deny-n them wen we were so grausiously accept-d in our time of need.
I know there are problems were sum just cum here to get citizinship, but wot about those that r sincer about want-n to cum here. For those that cum here, mesures can be setup, but not to totally deny them.

My point may be full of holes but this is my view of things and im quite happy at how i c things, and im not go-n 2 change my mind.. I just want-d to get my point across

P.S. plz excuse my spell-n mistakes, i'm not very good...:dunno:

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by sceptre
Assuming you're all happy to run with dictionary definitions then, anyone else want to explain the difference between a logical OR and a logical AND to Lioness?

I'n going away to Galway for the weekend and I'm going now so I've no time to draw nice little Venn diagrams.

This is what I meant by someone criticising spelling and grammar. And its hypocritical when he cant even spell I'm.

ps I was taking the piss with the 3 n's

Plus will any of the opponents to this legislation answer the question I asked? If you were born in a foreign country while on holiday would you want to be a citizen of that country or would you want to be Irish?

pete

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
This is what I meant by someone criticising spelling and grammar. And its hypocritical when he cant even spell I'm.

It was flawed Boolean logic that was being pointed out, not spelling or grammar. In any event, you'll note from the keyboard in front of you that the letters M and N are beside each other. Are you familiar with the word "typo"?

ps I was taking the piss with the 3 n's

Of course you were. I had originally thought it was a typo, but as you've stated otherwise then I presume you're continuing on that theme by leaving the apostrophe out of "can't"?

Plus will any of the opponents to this legislation answer the question I asked? If you were born in a foreign country while on holiday would you want to be a citizen of that country or would you want to be Irish?

Your question is irrelevant. The referendum issue was should an individual have the right to be a citizen if born here, irrespective of whether the indiviual wants to exercise that right or not.

But to answer it anyway - if i had been born in america while my parents were there on holiday, i probably would not want to excercise my citizenship right. If however my parents were living there, I would.

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by pete
Of course you were. I had originally thought it was a typo, but as you've stated otherwise then I presume you're continuing on that theme by leaving the apostrophe out of "can't"?

No Im just rarely bothered to put in apostrophes when typing. Besides Im not the one being condescending claiming that others dont know the difference between "or" and "and" when I cant even spell correctly.

Originally posted by pete
Your question is irrelevant. The referendum issue was should an individual have the right to be a citizen if born here, irrespective of whether the indiviual wants to exercise that right or not.

But to answer it anyway - if i had been born in america while my parents were there on holiday, i probably would not want to excercise my citizenship right. If however my parents were living there, I would.

My question isnt irrelevant. In my opinion people shouldnt have the automatic right to choose to be a citizen just because they were born here if they have no other ties to the country. My question highlights that no one would want to be a a citizen of a foreign country that they have no ties to. Why would anyone want to be a citizen of another state that they had no ties to anyway? They wouldnt unless it was of benefut to them. So why should the state give out citizenship to people that only want to be a citizen so to use it to their advantage and have no desire to be seen as Irish? If foreign people who are living here and have kids they are still perfectly entitled to apply for citizenship. But in this instance they have lived here and have ties to the country so I have absolutely no problem in them becoming citizens.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pete
Why the personal attacks, dude? You're bumming me out here.

Personal attacks was something you started though, remember?

Originally posted by Tuars
Yes, we have the parent clause obviously but we've given the government a lot more power to decide citizenship than I think is justified when you think of the problem that we are trying to solve.

The constitution removed one basis for citizenship, that’s all. Nothing else changed. The government cannot deny citizenship to the offspring of a citizen. As for the process of citizenship via naturalization, that remains unchanged.

Originally posted by Wicknight
But of course I am just paraniod. There has never been a case of the government attempting to enact legislation that goes against constitutional fundamentals ..... oh wait :rolleyes:

Yes you are paranoid. Simple as that, you’ve suggested nothing other than you don’t trust this or any other government.

But we didn't "fix" it, we made it even more unclear.

Actually no. It’s quite clear to me and to others in this thread. You’re the one who’s having difficulty understanding it.

The Constitution is the protection of the people against the introduction of new law that harms the people.

It still is. You’ve failed to prove otherwise - and before you throw another hissy fit and say you have, please show where.

Not unless it can be proven the mother is an Irish citizen. How is a 5 minute old child supposed to prove that his dead mother is Irish?

I doubt the 5-minute-old child can, but the attending doctor may be in a better position to do so. Nonetheless, were the same situation to have occurred on foreign soil prior to the referendum, then the same thing would have happened, so the amendment has really little to do with the matter. All that has occurred is that one, frankly idiotic, basis for citizenship was removed - everything else is status quo.

What do you base that on?

You are basing all your cases on the principle of ‘when in doubt give them citizenship’ and all that was removed was the principle based upon your location of birth. Both scenarios you suggested are to do with proof of parenthood, which could have occurred just as easily outside the State, thus making the amended clause irrelevant.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yes you are paranoid. Simple as that, you’ve suggested nothing other than you don’t trust this or any other government.

So you are honestly telling me that you trust all future governments? Is that what you are actually saying? Are you serious?

Please can I have a lend of your time travel device :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Actually no. It’s quite clear to me and to others in this thread. You’re the one who’s having difficulty understanding it.

Just me and the AGTWU, Access Ireland, Akidwa - African Women's Network, Alliance Centre for Sexual Health, Artists for a NO vote, Campaign Against the Racist Referendum, Children's Rights Alliance, Comhlamh, Communities Against Racism, Community Workers Co-operative, Doctors Against the Amendment, Dublin Congress of Trade Unions, Imigrant Advice, European Anti Poverty Network, Family Diversity Initiative, Free Legal Advice Centres, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Global Longford, Green Party, ICON - Inner City Organisations Network, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Integrating Ireland, Integration of African Children in Ireland, Irish Council of Civil Liberties, Irish Family Planning Association, Irish Penal Reform Trust, Irish Refugee Council, Irish Traveller Movemeny, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Jesuit Refugee Service - Ireland, Labour Party, Lawyers Against the Referendum, The League of Filipino, Nurses in Ireland, Le Cheile Artists in Ireland Against Racism, Longford Women's Link, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, National Lesbian and Gay Federation, National Youth Council of Ireland, National Women's Council, NASC - Irish Immigrant Support Centre, New Horizons Athlone, One Family, Pavee Point Travellers Centre, Refugee Information Servic, Residents Against Racism, Roma Support Group, Sinn Fein, Socialist Workers Party, Union of Students of Ireland, Vincentian Refugee Centre, Waterford Congress of Trade Unions.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It still is. You’ve failed to prove otherwise - and before you throw another hissy fit and say you have, please show where.

Er you yourself introducted the "fixed with legislation" idea, saying that we didn't have to worry about this being removed from the Constitution because we can fix any problems with legislation (and it is paranoid to think we might not)

So how can the Constitution still be providing protection if we have to fix any problems with legislaton with future legislation

You are now contradicting your own arguments.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I doubt the 5-minute-old child can, but the attending doctor may be in a better position to do so.

How exactly does the doctor do this??

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Nonetheless, were the same situation to have occurred on foreign soil...

... which could have occurred just as easily outside the State, thus making the amended clause irrelevant.

Foreign soil? Outside the state?

Who gives a cr&p about foreign soil. I am talking about the Republic of Ireland. If you think other countries laws are more important than our own go live there.

arcadegame2004

Just me and the AGTWU, Access Ireland, Akidwa - African Women's Network, Alliance Centre for Sexual Health, Artists for a NO vote, Campaign Against the Racist Referendum, Children's Rights Alliance, Comhlamh, Communities Against Racism, Community Workers Co-operative, Doctors Against the Amendment, Dublin Congress of Trade Unions, Imigrant Advice, European Anti Poverty Network, Family Diversity Initiative, Free Legal Advice Centres, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Global Longford, Green Party, ICON - Inner City Organisations Network, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Integrating Ireland, Integration of African Children in Ireland, Irish Council of Civil Liberties, Irish Family Planning Association, Irish Penal Reform Trust, Irish Refugee Council, Irish Traveller Movemeny, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Jesuit Refugee Service - Ireland, Labour Party, Lawyers Against the Referendum, The League of Filipino, Nurses in Ireland, Le Cheile Artists in Ireland Against Racism, Longford Women's Link, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, National Lesbian and Gay Federation, National Youth Council of Ireland, National Women's Council, NASC - Irish Immigrant Support Centre, New Horizons Athlone, One Family, Pavee Point Travellers Centre, Refugee Information Servic, Residents Against Racism, Roma Support Group, Sinn Fein, Socialist Workers Party, Union of Students of Ireland, Vincentian Refugee Centre, Waterford Congress of Trade Unions

Rarely if ever have so many organisations represented such a small minority of public opinion.

As a Gay person I can truly say that the "National Lesbian and Gay Federation" do not represent my views on the referendum. No more than the USI represented the views of the majority of Third Level Students on this issue. How did these bodies make their decision? Did they consult their own membership through secret-ballot? Or was it just the leadership? Hmmmm....Are they even representing their own members....

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

As a Gay person I can truly say that the "National Lesbian and Gay Federation" do not represent my views on the referendum.

Thats fine, no one was attempting to force you to vote No just because you are gay.

These organisations make recommendations to their members, but they don't force their members to vote the way they recommend (afaik)

keu

I don't know how relevant this is, but I tend to take examples of the implications from personal experience, than to quote logical idioms to support my views.

last year while on my way out for a few drinks with a friend we passed a bloke sitting on the steps of the franciscan friary wrapped up in a blanket in the pissing rain. He was a local homeless fella and knew him by name. He was a harmless man, not an alco bum, apx mid 60's.
After walking past, I had to turn around and go back and tell him there was a mens hospital a couple of yards away who would surely let him in out of the rain and offer him a bed for the night. He said he had already been there and they were full up. (i'm not sure how many they can take in there but it's no more than twenty)
I said there was another hostel (viking house) around the corner but the last I remembered there was a nominal fee and offered to put up the price for a warm bed.
So in delight he got up of the ground (soaking wet) and we walked to the hostel.
I knew it was being used to accomodate refugees, but I knew it was a big place (and a publhostel for public use, previously used by backpackers) and if someone was offering cash that there shouldn't have been any issues.
After waiting half an hour for a receptionsit to arrive, I asked the price for a night and was told bluntly that under no circumstances would he be allowed to stay as the hostel only accomdated refugees.
(during the half hour wait, I was able to access the reception computer from over the desk and saw that there were at least 20 rooms free)
The homeless bloke got a bit anxious because he didn't want to make a fuss, but eventually we left (very pissed off) back out in the pissing rain and I gave him the money that would have covered the price for a night in the hostel anyway.
He went back to his spot on the steps of the friary and camped there for the night with just a blanket.

I cannot understand how or why this government can provide (luxury) resources for foreign nationals and yet fail to provide for our own.
This is just one case, but here in waterford refugees have been provided with accomodation in some of the most desirable locations (where the government pays the rent) example, tramore's newest housing along side tramore bay, which was initially built as private luxury accomodation, and the rest of the city's requirements are being housed in run down local authority dwellings.
What is wrong with this picture.

I don't think I am a racist, I'm all for equal rights (as I stated before), but it seems to me that the Irish are required to give the coats off their backs to foreign nationals, and our own are being denied the same provisions.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
So you are honestly telling me that you trust all future governments? Is that what you are actually saying? Are you serious?

Right then, let’s just codify all legislation in the Constitution then, after all, if it’s an untrustworthy government there’s nothing they can change there... :rolleyes:

Unlike you I am not convinced that they’re all out to get me. Tin foil hats don’t suit me.

Just me and the AGTWU, Access Ireland, Akidwa - African Women's Network, Alliance Centre for Sexual Health, Artists for a NO vote, Campaign Against the Racist Referendum, Children's Rights Alliance, Comhlamh, Communities Against Racism, Community Workers Co-operative, Doctors Against the Amendment, Dublin Congress of Trade Unions, Imigrant Advice, European Anti Poverty Network, Family Diversity Initiative, Free Legal Advice Centres, Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Global Longford, Green Party, ICON - Inner City Organisations Network, Immigrant Council of Ireland, Integrating Ireland, Integration of African Children in Ireland, Irish Council of Civil Liberties, Irish Family Planning Association, Irish Penal Reform Trust, Irish Refugee Council, Irish Traveller Movemeny, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Jesuit Refugee Service - Ireland, Labour Party, Lawyers Against the Referendum, The League of Filipino, Nurses in Ireland, Le Cheile Artists in Ireland Against Racism, Longford Women's Link, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, National Lesbian and Gay Federation, National Youth Council of Ireland, National Women's Council, NASC - Irish Immigrant Support Centre, New Horizons Athlone, One Family, Pavee Point Travellers Centre, Refugee Information Servic, Residents Against Racism, Roma Support Group, Sinn Fein, Socialist Workers Party, Union of Students of Ireland, Vincentian Refugee Centre, Waterford Congress of Trade Unions.

What about all those organizations who have no difficulty understanding? I think you’ll find that they represent more people than that rag-tag collection of yours.

Er you yourself introducted the "fixed with legislation" idea, saying that we didn't have to worry about this being removed from the Constitution because we can fix any problems with legislation (and it is paranoid to think we might not)

So how can the Constitution still be providing protection if we have to fix any problems with legislaton with future legislation

The constitution is not a a complete codex of law, I and other people have told you this repeatedly. Legislation is continually being updated, refined and corrected. None of this has anything to do with my saying that the Constitution is still the protection of the people against the introduction of new law that harms the people?

How exactly does the doctor do this??

I said he may do this. Even if he does not the issue is one of proof and identification.

Foreign soil? Outside the state?

Who gives a cr&p about foreign soil. I am talking about the Republic of Ireland. If you think other countries laws are more important than our own go live there.

What you can’t seem to grasp is that you are attempting to use the principle of being born in a geographical location as a catch-all solution to the protection of citizenship rights. This ‘solution’ is useless when attempting to defend the same rights of people who should be considered citizens under identical circumstances abroad. Or, prior to the referendum, of someone who was born in the state and who’s records were lost.

To truly cover every eventuality, by extension of your logic, we would have to give citizenship to anyone who claimed it, on the off-chance they had such a right.

Shit happens. When it does we have to deal with it as best as we can, but not base our fundamental definitions of Citizenships upon Murphy’s law. And what you are saying is that we should have maintained a basis of citizenship, on the off-chance that someone can’t prove their parenthood.

Zombrex

Originally posted by keu
I don't think I am a racist, I'm all for equal rights (as I stated before), but it seems to me that the Irish are required to give the coats off their backs to foreign nationals, and our own are being denied the same provisions.

(Getting off topic, but anyways.... )

I wouldn't blame the refugees for that, blame the government departments for bad management and refusal to build more houses -

It is a common miss-conception that the houses for poor people and the houses for refugees are the same. They are not, it is handled by completely different departments. If one groups is being well handled and the other is not, it is not because one group is getting all the others houses.

Interesting read from IndyMedia -
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60975&region=waterford

"We’re getting terrible harassment from the Gardai. They pass by every night shouting abuse at us, calling us ****ing **** and saying they’re going to get us. I tried to complain to the superintendent, but nothing happened. The St. Vincent de Paul office is only yards away from where we are sleeping, but when we went to them for help, they wouldn’t give us anything, not even blankets to keep warm. We had to buy blankets from their shop".

"There’s a hostel nearby with asylum seekers. We don’t know what we would have done without them. They’ve fed us and allowed us to use the facilities. A lot of people on the housing list blame refugees for the lack of housing, but that’s rubbish. There’s a lack of housing because the government won’t put the money into building them. The people passing have been terrific. We’ve collected 800 signatures on our petition. People on the housing list know what it is like dealing with a council who don’t care about anyone".

keu

I placed the thread in humanities. just want to be clear though

I cannot understand how or why this government can provide (luxury) resources for foreign nationals and yet fail to provide for our own.

I'm not blaming refugees, I clearly site the Government responsible.
When they sold us to the EU, it was under the condition that we open our doors and provide for refugees.