"Yes" landslide

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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:

Or we could just use the system of democracy used for the last 300 years, and use the constitution to protect the fundamental principles of our country ... I know I know, its a crazy crazy idea

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

Again, the only way your agrument makes sense is if you are certain no future government will ever ever make a law that is unconstitional, which is just complete nonsence, considering the nuerous times they have in the past.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

Rag-tag? Is that the best you can do :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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?

Er, thats not what you said. You said it was safe to remove these protections from the constitution because you trust all future governments to handle the legislation correctly. All future governments. The obvious extention of that argument is to remove the constitution completely :rolleyes:

If you are going to change your points midway, then there is very little point in you attempting to argue them in the first place

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even if he does not the issue is one of proof and identification.

Exactly, and this change puts the burden of proof on the child. The 5 minute old child has to prove he is a citizen, if he doesn't his birth-cert is marks him as not being a vaild citizen of the state. But like you said "sh*t happens" :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

I am not saying the orignal constitution covered every eventuality. But why oh why did we enact an amendment that vastly widened the eventualities where citizienship can be denied? All so the government can look tough on immigration :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

Yes I am. I have both friends and family who have worked with parents and children, in clinics hospitals etc. And it happens all the time that someone cannot prove parenthood. All the time

seamus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I said he may do this. Even if he does not the issue is one of proof and identification.

Further to this, such a situation would only occur where they find the woman pregnant, unable to speak and about to die. Most countries will make an attempt to acertain sex, age, name, address and nationality of Jane Does, especially where a child has been born. Wicknight, you hardly think they'd just burn the mother and hand the child over to an orphanage do you?

Besides, in the very very rare case where a woman dies and the child is saved, and the mother is devoid of any documentation whatsoever, it's a case of **** happens. The exact same thing could occur right now, with the current constitution in place.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Or we could just use the system of democracy used for the last 300 years, and use the constitution to protect the fundamental principles of our country ... I know I know, its a crazy crazy idea

We do use the constitution to protect the fundamental principles of our country. I’ve already said so. Repeatedly. You simply retort with a paranoid, ‘they’re out to get us’ rant.

Again, the only way your agrument makes sense is if you are certain no future government will ever ever make a law that is unconstitional, which is just complete nonsence, considering the nuerous times they have in the past.

Numerous times? Right point them out and how we have dealt with them?

Rag-tag? Is that the best you can do :rolleyes:

That’s what I asked you - you list out groups like the Socialist Workers and expect to be taken seriously, is that the best you can do? :rolleyes:

Er, thats not what you said. You said it was safe to remove these protections from the constitution because you trust all future governments to handle the legislation correctly. All future governments. The obvious extention of that argument is to remove the constitution completely :rolleyes:

What protections? I’ve been saying repeatedly that these were no protections.

Exactly, and this change puts the burden of proof on the child. The 5 minute old child has to prove he is a citizen, if he doesn't his birth-cert is marks him as not being a vaild citizen of the state. But like you said "sh*t happens" :rolleyes:

Yes it does, so shall we make everyone a citizen if they ask - just in case?

I am not saying the orignal constitution covered every eventuality.

But that’s what you’re throwing out in your extreme examples - and the constitution did not cover numerous other possibilities either prior to the referendum. That is the purpose of legislation.

But why oh why did we enact an amendment that vastly widened the eventualities where citizienship can be denied? All so the government can look tough on immigration :rolleyes:

Or perhaps because just because you’re born in Ireland doesn’t make you Irish.

Yes I am. I have both friends and family who have worked with parents and children, in clinics hospitals etc. And it happens all the time that someone cannot prove parenthood. All the time

You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

arcadegame2004

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.

The Government was responsible in that it didn't have its eye on the ball during the GFA negotiations in respect of granting automatic citizenship based on being born on this island regardless of circumstances. It wasn't the EU's fault that our Govt. made that mistake.

At least it's rectified now.

pete

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
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.

aahahahaaa.

Too much.

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 core issue at the heart of the referendum had NOTHING to do with either your preconcieved notions of the motives of women about to drop sprogs in ireland or my lefty bleeding heart.

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?"

Dude - I have some news for you: NEWBORN BABIES DON'T HAVE ANY CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP OR THE EXPLOITATION THEREOF. Sure, their parents might - BUT THE REFERENDUM WASN'T ABOUT THEIR PARENTS.

Glad we cleared that up.


ps I know spelling mistakes bother you, so i think i should just point out it's "benefit", not "benefut".

pps Unless that was another comedic genius moment, in which case HAHAHAHA!

ppps no, really.

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Personal attacks was something you started though, remember?

Specifically?

Remember - it's never too late to apologise, dude.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
We do use the constitution to protect the fundamental principles of our country. I’ve already said so. Repeatedly. You simply retort with a paranoid, ‘they’re out to get us’ rant.

Again with the contradictions - we use the constitution to protect us from legislation; we don't need it in the constitution we can deal with in legislation ... make up your mind

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Numerous times? Right point them out and how we have dealt with them?

I couldn't be arsed trying to teach you Irish history - type Unconstitutional Legislation into www.google.ie

For one there was the Equal Status Act, which had to be changed to fall in line with the constitution ... tin foil hat indeed :rolleyes:

"The Equal Status Act was not considered in detail by the Supreme Court although it was clear from its decision that there were at least two factors in both Acts which made the Equal Status Act unconstitutional. In those circumstances we have had to go through the Act with a fine tooth comb to bring forward a new Bill which will be upheld constitutionally. "

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What protections? I’ve been saying repeatedly that these were no protections.

What? Now you are not only contracting yourself, but your contractions don't even make sense.

You don't think "eveyone born in Ireland is Irish" was a protection of citizenship?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yes it does, so shall we make everyone a citizen if they ask - just in case?

Where did "asking" come into it??? Again you are introducing new points in a desperate attempt to prop up your arguments. Under the old system we made every baby born in Ireland a citizen, there was no obligation on the baby to prove they have the right to citizenship. No one was asking for citizenship. You think a 5 minute old baby asked for citizenship under the old system???

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Or perhaps because just because you’re born in Ireland doesn’t make you Irish.

And just because your mother has an Irish passport doesn't make you Irish. There is no perfect way to decide who truly deserves to be Irish. As soon as you make the system narrower up pops a whole load of other people that wouldn't be considered truly irish. Are we going to enact another referendum in a year limiting it to people with Irish parents who have lived for the last 5 years in Ireland, and another in 2 years limited it to people who can speak Irish, and who can name their local GAA team. :rolleyes:

The narrower you make it, the more "true" Irish people fall through the cracks and are denied citizenship. You say they are extreme cases but you have no real idea about how extreme they are, you just tell yourself that so you can think you did the right thing

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

Well considering your argument that I was paraniod was based on nothing but your own limited opinion I though I would just throw that out there

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Pete
Dude - I have some news for you: NEWBORN BABIES DON'T HAVE ANY CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP OR THE EXPLOITATION THEREOF. Sure, their parents might - BUT THE REFERENDUM WASN'T ABOUT THEIR PARENTS.

Few babies will actually lose rights in future as a result of this referendum. I say that because their parents wouldn't even be turning up here pregnant but to increase the parents' chances of getting to stay here. The babies were simply a means to an end.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Few babies will actually lose rights in future as a result of this referendum. I say that becayse their parents wouldn't even be turning up here pregnant but to increase their parents' chances of getting to stay here. The babies were simply a means to an end.

I'm not even going to go into how wrong you are, but thank you for sharing the benefit of your time machine with us.

Any chance of a looksie at next week's lotto numbers while you're at it?

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I say that because their parents wouldn't even be turning up here pregnant but to increase the parents' chances of getting to stay here. The babies were simply a means to an end.

Wrong ... the parents don't do it for themselves, they do it so their child can have an EU passport when they are older and go to find work

pete

IT WAS a scene reminiscent of the darkest days of the Klu Klux Klan. But this was not America's deep South - it was Longford on a Monday morning two weeks ago.

Two men wearing balaclavas hung a life-size black doll from the railway bridge on the Dublin Road at 5am on June 7. The doll had a paper bag over its head and a sign around its neck saying: "**** go home - you'll never be Irish."


...

Full-time mum Samantha Edwards, 26, voted No in the referendum, but even she expressed a view that was common on the streets of Longford town last week. "The big Yes vote was to cut down on the number of asylum seekers. I thought it was a racist vote, but we are polluted with refugees. The Government has been far too liberal giving them top-notch brand new things, money and houses when local people want council houses."

By March 2004, asylum seekers made up 0.21 per cent of the population of Co Longford. This compares with 0.04 per cent in Co Sligo - which recorded the lowest Yes vote, and 0.52 percent in Co Westmeath - which had the second highest Yes vote.

Eighteen-year-old Sabrina Maguire, a full-time mum, said: "I voted Yes. I don't mind immigrants in the town, but they seem to be overrunning it. We have to fight to get anything from the social, but they seem to get everything a lot quicker. Some Irish people make smart comments when they pass them in the street."

Despite this common perception, many of the black faces seen in Longford town are not asylum seekers, but workers in nearby mushroom farms, meat factories and engineering factories.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1201815&issue_id=11030

Zombrex

Originally posted by pete
"The big Yes vote was to cut down on the number of asylum seekers. I thought it was a racist vote, but we are polluted with refugees"

"I voted Yes. I don't mind immigrants in the town, but they seem to be overrunning it."

Just shows that the Yes campaign managed to make this referendum about the asylum seekers and non-nationals that are currently here, when it was never about them. If anything it is about non-nationals in 18 years time, the ones currently here are not effected at all.

To quote the guy on the new Michael Moore movie trailer, "You can get people to do anything when they are afraid"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pete
Remember - it's never too late to apologise, dude.

You start with apologising to Lioness and I may consider it.

Originally posted by Wicknight
Again with the contradictions - we use the constitution to protect us from legislation; we don't need it in the constitution we can deal with in legislation ... make up your mind

What fscking contradiction? The only thing or person I’m contradicting is you. Are you just coming out with this crap at this stage to obfuscate alone?

I couldn't be arsed trying to teach you Irish history - type Unconstitutional Legislation into www.google.ie

Cute. I would suggest you can’t be arsed being shown up as bluffing.

Where did "asking" come into it??? Again you are introducing new points in a desperate attempt to prop up your arguments. Under the old system we made every baby born in Ireland a citizen, there was no obligation on the baby to prove they have the right to citizenship. No one was asking for citizenship. You think a 5 minute old baby asked for citizenship under the old system???

This is not a new point; I’ve used it repeatedly. Simply because you’ve conveniently ignored it does not make it true.

One of the core, and most dubious, tenets of your argument is that the constitutional change; the removal of the right to citizenship to those offspring of Irish citizens born within the State, was some form of protection to those who might not be able to prove their parenthood. As this would not cover those offspring of Irish citizens born outside the State, then by extension of your argument we should protect their right also. The only way to be certain that such an Irish citizen’s right was not denied would ultimately be to simply allow anyone citizenship - just to be on the safe side.

And just because your mother has an Irish passport doesn't make you Irish. There is no perfect way to decide who truly deserves to be Irish. As soon as you make the system narrower up pops a whole load of other people that wouldn't be considered truly irish. Are we going to enact another referendum in a year limiting it to people with Irish parents who have lived for the last 5 years in Ireland, and another in 2 years limited it to people who can speak Irish, and who can name their local GAA team. :rolleyes:

Just because mother has an Irish passport doesn't make you Irish, but it’s more likely than if neither of your parents are any you just were born in the State.

All nations have various conditions that define their citizenship; Germans and Italians must be so by blood. Latvians must pass an exam in Latvian before they are granted citizenship. If anything we’re more liberal in this regard in Ireland.

Even you must agree that there must be a realistic ‘cut-off’ point to citizenship, where beyond that point granting citizenship devalues it. Basing citizenship upon a geographical accident of birth is ridiculous. Keeping it simply as some form of protection of the rights of people who can’t prove their parenthood is a joke (as you can never fully protect such people - for example if they’re born outside the State).

The narrower you make it, the more "true" Irish people fall through the cracks and are denied citizenship. You say they are extreme cases but you have no real idea about how extreme they are, you just tell yourself that so you can think you did the right thing

Frankly, neither do you.

Well considering your argument that I was paraniod was based on nothing but your own limited opinion I though I would just throw that out there

Sure, whatever. I think you’re still confusing me with someone that cares about your opinion of me.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
[BWhat fscking contradiction? [/b]

The contradiction between your different arguments that I have pointed out to you about 15 times!

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Cute. I would suggest you can’t be arsed being shown up as bluffing.

I could understand you saying that, if I hadn't just given you an example that happened only a few years ago! For christ sake, you ask for proof, I give you proof then you completely ignore it ... what is the point?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
As this would not cover those offspring of Irish citizens born outside the State, then by extension of your argument we should protect their right also.

No, that is your extension that you are adding to try and disprove my point. You then make a huge leap from this addition, to the idea of giving citizenship to everyone who asks for it, and them criticise that point as if I was mine!! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even you must agree that there must be a realistic ‘cut-off’ point to citizenship, where beyond that point granting citizenship devalues it. Basing citizenship upon a geographical accident of birth is ridiculous.

Why exactly? It is only ridiculous if you automatically assume that the child is going to leave as soon as they are born. But exactly the same thing can happen if we grant citizenship to children of citizens! There is absolutly nothing in the new amendment that guarantees the new child will stay in the country. They could leave and never return. A child of an asylum seeker who is born in Ireland and who then lives in Ireland for most of their life, is more "Irish" to me than a child born to parents who then immigrate to the US for ever.

This amendment doesn't "protect" your idea of citizenship any more than the old amendment did. You assume than no foreign national actually wants to raise their children here, and that no Irish person would ever leave :rolleyes:

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You start with apologising to Lioness and I may consider it.

ahem

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pete
Oh and Lioness - if in fact you're not a racist bigot, please accept my apologies.

And if you're not a tit simply looking to get in a cheap shot against other posters, please accept my apologies.

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And if you're not a tit simply looking to get in a cheap shot against other posters, please accept my apologies.

Apology accepted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
The contradiction between your different arguments that I have pointed out to you about 15 times!

Oh well since you’ve put it that way it must be true :rolleyes:

No, that is your extension that you are adding to try and disprove my point. You then make a huge leap from this addition, to the idea of giving citizenship to everyone who asks for it, and them criticise that point as if I was mine!! :rolleyes:

I said that was an extension of your logic. I never said otherwise - if I did point it out.

Why exactly? It is only ridiculous if you automatically assume that the child is going to leave as soon as they are born.

No it’s ridiculous to assume that they are Irish simply because they’re born in the State, regardless of whether they remain or not. If they remain and grow up in Ireland they are Irish, regardless of where they were born.

But exactly the same thing can happen if we grant citizenship to children of citizens! There is absolutly nothing in the new amendment that guarantees the new child will stay in the country. They could leave and never return. A child of an asylum seeker who is born in Ireland and who then lives in Ireland for most of their life, is more "Irish" to me than a child born to parents who then immigrate to the US for ever.

The child of an asylum seeker who is born in Ireland and who then lives in Ireland for most of their life, is more "Irish" by dint of living in Ireland for most of their life, not being born in Ireland. Frankly, a child of an asylum seeker who is not born in Ireland and who then lives in Ireland for most of their life, is more "Irish" to me by the same logic.

This amendment doesn't "protect" your idea of citizenship any more than the old amendment did. You assume than no foreign national actually wants to raise their children here, and that no Irish person would ever leave :rolleyes:

Where the hell do you get that?

GuanYin

...and return to find out the worst things you thought about the country were true.

Well I'm not actually back yet but I've only just had time to see all the fallout from the referendum and elections.

I'm gutted at the referendum result, that something that to my mind was a diversionary tactic by the government to appease the working classes by feeding their fear of immigrants, should be ceased upon so readily by the Irish people, despite any firm facts or figures and with little reliability to those statistics put forward, is something I find hard to take.

FF going down was hardly a surprise, nor their rounding on the PDs.

The main take home plus from me out of all this, despite an apparent racial ignorance being dominent in Ireland, Justin Barrett got flattened.

bonkey

Originally posted by syke
I'm gutted at the referendum result, that something that to my mind was a diversionary tactic by the government to appease the working classes by feeding their fear of immigrants, should be ceased upon so readily by the Irish people, despite any firm facts or figures and with little reliability to those statistics put forward, is something I find hard to take.

Hear hear.

I'm also guessing that in a year or so, when the next major offensive in "dealing with the problem" of immigration is undertaken, we'll have to listen to a myriad of reasons as to why this oh-so-important referendum didn't change anything in reality.

Note to those who can't make the distinction : this is a guess. This means its a personal opinion. Nothing more. If you don't agree, thats fine.

Also : I'll quite happily eat my words if and when this referendum shows itself to have been worthwhile......so before anyone goes lambasting my skepticism, they should ask themselves if they're willing to do likewise if we don't see any rapid and meaningful impact from it like we were led to believe would happen.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

Also : I'll quite happily eat my words if and when this referendum shows itself to have been worthwhile......so before anyone goes lambasting my skepticism, they should ask themselves if they're willing to do likewise if we don't see any rapid and meaningful impact from it like we were led to believe would happen.

jc

I'm curious on one level Bonkey.
I thoroughly agree with anyone here that say that many voted to keep the "blacks" out or whatever.
I didn't, my vote was simply to close the baby loophole,I make no apoligies for that.
I thought, that was what this citizenship referendum was about and supposed to facilitate.
I've no truck at all with legal immigrants,I bring them here to work all the time as part of my job.

I'd suggest that any level of racism that was present in the way people voted, is there anyway.
It's as much selfishness as racism.
They either don't like the look of them or in probably a bigger percentage of cases, they don't want them taking what they perceive as "our" work.
( where exactly did thousands of Irish go when this country was in ruins...yes America and Britain....how ironic)
The further irony is, that the people I bring here are doing jobs, that locals wont do.
It's a money issue,yet the Ukranians I know working here for instance survive even when sending most of what they earn back home to their wives and families.
One of them is building a huge three story house out there, mostly financed from work done here.

I don't see the basis for any yes voter to claim that they won't see asylum seekers any more or refugee's based on this yes vote.
If they do claim that, they are mistaken.
They will always see some assylum seekers,but as before will only see legal refugees.
The refugee status having been given out as a result of a sucessfull asylum claim.
It is probably likely in my view that, the lack of automatic citizenship for babies born here to non national parents will eventually filter through to the number that decide that , thats a factor in their coming here.
But I wonder what will be in the legislation, ie will the babies of those whose parents are here for six months (yet whose asylum case has not yet been determined) be allowed citizenship.
I'd doubt it , if Mr McDowell has a hand as he will in formulating the legislation.

sceptre

Originally posted by Lioness
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.

Ah but you still don't appear to understand what OR means. Hence under the dictionary definition posted by simu and amended by you ("a native or inhabitant of Ireland"), if you're an inhabitant of Ireland you're Irish. OR if you're a native of ireland. AND versus OR. Either one is sufficient, either one is necessary. Unless you don't want to go with the dictionary definition in which case we're back to discussing the price of peanuts with someone who classifies watching Father Ted as almost enough to make one Irish.

Personally I find a one-line quick definition of what's essentially now a legal term which will have pages of legislation to explain it a little short but you were happy to catch the ball and run with it, while mistaking an "or" for an "and". Good luck with that.

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

I'm not supposed to be a moderator, I am a moderator. But I'm not a moderator on this board so as long as you can keep the poor logic away from my board I can live without being actually required to pull you on it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
I didn't, my vote was simply to close the baby loophole,I make no apoligies for that.

Fair enough.

You won't mind me asking which "baby loophole" you voted to close, though, because there's been so much posted about this that its impossible to figure out which form of the loophole you think you were voting to close.

(Note : I'm not saying in any way that your reasons are wrong....I'm just saying that I'm not clear what your reasons are).

I thought, that was what this citizenship referendum was about and supposed to facilitate.

It depends on who you ask, I guess. Its all moot now, but the "baby loophole" which supposedly sparked the need for a referendum was the whole "overburdened health service because of the 'shoppers'" loophole, which then turned into the "actually, its about the citizenship which their kids can abuse in 18 years time" loophole, and has also been represented as a myriad of other versions, including the straightforward "if your parents aren't irish, you don't deserve automatic citizenship for being born here, so you shouldn't get it" loophole.

I'm still uncertain as to whether or not anyone actually really knows what the referendum was really about, other than the high-up politicos who actually decided it was needed - and needed at such short notice. Everyone else has decided - from what I can see - what they think the referendum was or should have been about.

I'd suggest that any level of racism that was present in the way people voted, is there anyway.

No argument from me on that one.

It's as much selfishness as racism.

For some, undoubtedly.

It is probably likely in my view that, the lack of automatic citizenship for babies born here to non national parents will eventually filter through to the number that decide that , thats a factor in their coming here.

But the question that the No voters have been asking is how many people out of those who are causing any of the perceived problems does this actually constitute.

To be clearer - this referendum was not sold as closing an exploitable loophole which may or may not be actually exploited. It was about fixing some actual problem (which - as I said seems shrouded in mystery).

I'm simply asking the likes of arcade to stick his colours to the mast right and here and now and tell us what specific problems this referendum will solve, to what degree and in what timescale.

But I wonder what will be in the legislation,

You and me both.

Oh - and I know whats proposed for the first incarnation of the legislation, before someone tries to claim that this is the answer to our joint wonderings.

I'm unconvinced that this will remain unchanged prior to implementation, and even if it is, I'm unconvinced that it will remain unchanged for any appreciable amount of time.

I expect "the legislation needs tweaking" to be the ongoing excuse for the failure of the legislation to actually resolve the problems (whatever one decides them to be) that its supposed to, and that a lack of properly implemented legislation, will be - as it was prior to the referendum as well - the real root of any and all problems that we have regarding immigration.

jc

Lioness

dictionary definition posted by simu and amended by you ("a native or inhabitant of Ireland"),

nope. posted by bobbyjoe. "a native or inhabitant of Ireland". Amended by no-one.
:rolleyes:

Either one is sufficient, either one is necessary

I said that a few pgs ago...:rolleyes:

we're back to discussing the...

discussing?! nope. you dont disuss anyting. You just post sarcastic comments that contribute nothing to the thread. we know why that is...

Personally I find a one-line quick definition of what's essentially now a legal term...

Bitchy Waffle.

I'm not supposed to be a moderator, I am a moderator

could have fooled me.

But I'm not a moderator on this board so as long as you can keep the poor logic away from my board I can live without being actually required to pull you on it.

I NEVER got the terms mixed up. The def. posted encompassed what I had been saying all along. Yet some people conveniently didnt see that. so I had to point it out :rolleyes: P.S, just because your a moderater doesnt give you the right to throw around insolent, spiteful comments and remarks. As long as you dont continue your attitude I can live without being actually required to pull you on it
By the way I will post wherever I want.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Lioness
discussing?! nope. you dont disuss anyting. You just post sarcastic comments that contribute nothing to the thread. we know why that is...

...and then:

Bitchy Waffle.

...

could have fooled me.

Riight.

By the way I will post wherever I want.

I didn't notice Sceptre suggesting otherwise.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Wicknight
Wrong ... the parents don't do it for themselves, they do it so their child can have an EU passport when they are older and go to find work

I strongly disagree. As, evidently, do 79% of the Irish people. But you are entitled to your opinion. However delusional and naieve it may be.

Originally posted by syke
I'm gutted at the referendum result, that something that to my mind was a diversionary tactic by the government to appease the working classes by feeding their fear of immigrants, should be ceased upon so readily by the Irish people, despite any firm facts or figures and with little reliability to those statistics put forward, is something I find hard to take.

Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. I found on the Dail website that 340 million euro was spent on asylum-seekers in 2002. No doubt a lot of that was our money being spent buying up properties up and down the country that would otherwise how gone to Irish people, who are forced to wait longer to get a house as a result either of the longer local-authority housing waiting-lists or because of the increased property prices that result. I want Irish people to come first when it comes to spending Irish taxpayers' money.

Originally posted by Bonkey
But the question that the No voters have been asking is how many people out of those who are causing any of the perceived problems does this actually constitute.

I consider it as being around 6,000. Pat Rabbitte has now admitted that the statistics he has recently been sent by the Government showed that 1,500 Nigerians and around 450 Romanians gave birth in Dublin hospitals in 2003. This is out of approximately 4600 non-EU national births. As very few work-permits have been issued to Nigeria, I consider that nearly all of these Nigerian births are to asylum-seekers. Many of the Romanians probably are too. And these are just figures for Dublin. 21% of births are to non-nationals outside of Dublin. Overall I estimate that around 6,000 of the non-national births in the Republic of Ireland were motivated by citizenship, and Rotunda Hospital doctors have backed this up, e.g. Dr.Michael Geary has said that 30% of births in the Coombe Hospital are to non-EU nationals who are not legally resident here, and who just get off the boat and head straight to the hospital practically in labour when they book. He told this to the Irish Sun. Before someone calls the Sun "a rag" or whatever, the doctor was quoted in the Irish Sun.

Now you in the losing "No" side will probably question the "reliability" of these statistics. I consider them reliable. You obviously don't. Which goes to show what I said is true: Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. And obviously 79% of people considered statistics like these to be reliable. If you don't, then you're entitled to your opinion, as this is a democracy. Just remember that ina democracy the result of referenda must be accepted. Just like the result of elections.

If the referendum was a diversionary tactic, then the defeat of FF in the June 11th elections proves it didn't work. In fact exit-polls taken after the vote showed that even among the supporters of the "No" parties, a majority in each party-support-base voted "Yes", e.g. 68% of Labour voters, 52% of Green Party supporters, and an overwhelming majority of SF voters too. So the "No" side couldn't even persuade their own supporters. Which shows that most people believed that regardless of the motivation for calling the referendum, there was a valid reason to vote "Yes" and that there was a genuine - not superficial - issue to be dealt with. I am proud to have voted "Yes" and feel not the tiniest dram of guilt that the "No" side would like to instill in voters like me. A country in a free-movement area like the EU, needs to have similarly strong measures to deter illegal-immigration or else the illegals in other parts of the EU will all come here. That is obvious.

I hope that Labour and the Greens will learn the lessons of the fact that a majority of their supporters voted "Yes". The message is clear. Labour should drop its madcap idea of giving all our asylum-seekers and amnesty. And do not try to liberalise our asylum and immigration rules too much. You have been warned!

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I want Irish people to come first when it comes to spending Irish taxpayers' money.

I've been thinking about this. Can you explain why, exactly, Irish people should come first? What makes an Irish person more deserving of something than a non-Irish person (leaving aside for now the many and varied definitions of "Irish")?

It comes back to the whole racism debate. The essence of a lot of the argument I'm seeing here is "I'm not racist, I just think Irish people should come first." Why should Irish people come first? Evidently they are seen as more deserving of whatever is on offer. What makes them more deserving? Nothing objective, except whatever your personal definition of Irishness happens to be.

This, in essence, is saying that Irish people deserve preferential treatment simply by virtue of being Irish. How does this differ materially from the definition of racism?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A country in a free-movement area like the EU, needs to have similarly strong measures to deter illegal-immigration or else the illegals in other parts of the EU will all come here. That is obvious.

Hm, let's see.

1. We needed this referendum to close a loophole in our immigration law.
2. Without "strong measures to deter illegal-immigration" - such as, presumably, the closing if the aforementioned but sadly underdefined loophole - all the illegals in Europe will come here.
3. Therefore, while that loophole was open, all the illegals in the EU came here.

Um. Where are they?

arcadegame2004

I've been thinking about this. Can you explain why, exactly, Irish people should come first? What makes an Irish person more deserving of something than a non-Irish person

Irish people work hard to pay their taxes. That makes them more deserving than non-nationals coming here.

MadsL

Irish people work hard to pay their taxes. That makes them more deserving than non-nationals coming here.

What bollox. There are non-nationals here paying more tax than you probably earn in a year. Use your brain.