"Yes" landslide

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Irish people work hard to pay their taxes. That makes them more deserving than non-nationals coming here.

Does that include all the genuine Irish Born and Bred spongers who have never worked a day in their worthless lives, have no intention of ever working a day in their worthless lives and hate the thought of "all those blacks" coming over and taking their dole money? Are you talking about those more deserving hard working tax payers?

To be perfectly honest I would rather see my taxes going to support asylum seekers until they are allowed to work themselves.

Does that mean I am not patriotic?

MrP

MadsL

I strongly disagree. As, evidently, do 79% of the Irish people.

You mean 79% of those who voted. Or did I miss a 100% turnout in the referendum? Did you miss the day they taught percentages at your school?

Arcade, Victor pulled you up on this earlier...stop it.

GuanYin

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

But this wasn't the aim of the referendum. The referendum was proposed to curb future issues with a perceived problem. (that of immigrants coming here to have children and take advantage of the countries welfare policies).

There was no evidence that this was a problem. The statsitics given suggested that there were many non-nationals in materinity wards but never discriminated at any point whethere these people were legally in the country. Effectively what the masters in the materinity wards said was "we've got alot of non-irish people here". Those with a memory longer than that of a goldfish will remember that these maternity ward masters are the same people who put forward such misleading pearls of wisdom on the abortion referendum, which not only arguably influenced the result but turned out to be factually incorrect in almost every detail.

BAck to your post, you are quite right and justified in wanting to see the government address the issues of your family and friends first, but thats not what you have secured with your vote. Nothing will change in terms of these issues. In my opinion, the government has successfully mislead you, like so many others, into thinking that this move will refocus their priority on you and the native Irish. They have thrown you a sacrificial lamb by doing something that is viewed by the masses as a measure that will "stop them coming to take our jobs and women". This is not true, but its exactly what they hoped people would think.

What they have done is taken the rights away from some first generation children born in this country. They have done this despite the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any socially negative issue. The government wanted to save face with the working classes, they picked a tokenism subject matter in the area that working classes are highly emotive about (the percieved problem of immigrants causing irish working class to have a lower standard of living). They played on the xenophobic and racist fears of the nation and many many people were conned.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Irish people work hard to pay their taxes. That makes them more deserving than non-nationals coming here.

Nope. If that was the issue, then you would have said "taxpayers" instead of "Irish people."

I consider the question unanswered - please answer it, and this time answer the question I asked. While you're at it, please respond to my other post as well.

arcadegame2004

Well OscarBravo, before the Chen-ruling, there had been a fall in the number of asylum-seekers in the period from the January 2003 Supreme Court ruling that seemed to say that the asylum-seeker parents of Irish-born children could be deported. Most people believe that this fall was as a result of the judgement.

It follows then that the apparent (at least partial) reversal of this ruling (by implication) by the European Court of Justice in the Chen case had therefore removed the earlier aforementioned deterrant inherent in the Irish Supreme Court ruling by saying that the parents of an Irish/EU citizen cannot be deported. It follows then that the number of asylum-seekers coming here would likely rise, and the "Yes" helps avoid asylum-scroungers being as tempted as before to leave the safe EU states they are already in in order to repeat the Chen example.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It follows then that the apparent (at least partial) reversal of this ruling (by implication) by the European Court of Justice in the Chen case

There is no reversal of the ruling, partial or otherwise (apart from imaginary) of the L. and O. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decision of 23-01-03 (which I assume you're referring to when you mention January 2003) by the A-G's preliminary opinion in Chen. I've pointed this out before in excruciating detail and haven't had a single piece of evidence that says otherwise from you or from anyone else. Yet you still think we're all dumb enough to swallow tripe and thank you for steak.

If you can explain in graphic and correct detail why there is such a reversal, keeping in mind the phrase where the children enjoy a right to reside in the host Member State from the Chen ruling (which I've pointed out to you before), I'm sure the legal profession would simply love to hear it. Reading the Chen decision would be a start.

There was a clear distinction between the Irish L. and O. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the contemporary British Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK decision as a discriminatory policy came under examination in that case as it did in Chen. You might read that judgement too while you're at it.

Tuars

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
But you are entitled to your opinion. However delusional and naieve it may be.

I think that it is you who are delusional and naive if you believe that the referendum result will solve all (or any) of the immigration issues that you have raised. The only issue the result may affect is the incentive for a tiny minority of non-nationals to come to this country, have a baby, and leave the next day. And that's a big 'if' since we have damn all evidence that this is a significant problem.

To me, that does not sound like a major victory for those who wish to tighten up the immigration laws. 'Pyrrhic', I think would be a more appropriate adjective.

And just because 79% voted yes does not mean that the proposed solution will work.

From my point of view the only significant outcome of this referendum is that the citizens of Ireland have handed over their birth right to the whim of the government because they're afraid of a few foreigners taking their jobs.

Talk about lack of self-confidence...

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
... seemed to say ... Most people believe ... It follows then that the apparent (at least partial) reversal of this ruling (by implication) ... the number of asylum-seekers coming here would likely rise ...

You're hardly blinding me with concrete evidence here. Anyway, you didn't answer my point. You said that without strong deterrants, all the illegals would come here. We must not have had those deterrants (seeing as that's what we needed a referendum for, right?) so where are all the illegals? Oh look, they're still in other EU countries. Tell me what the problem was, again?

Oh, and you still haven't answered my first question: what makes Irish people more deserving than non-Irish?

arcadegame2004

From my point of view the only significant outcome of this referendum is that the citizens of Ireland have handed over their birth right to the whim of the government

Dail Eireann had this power already from 1921 to 1998 anyway amd I didn't notice any catastrophic consequences, did you?

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Oh, and you still haven't answered my first question: what makes Irish people more deserving than non-Irish?

Well as citizens they are entitled to certain rights, benfits etc etc non irish are not simple as that as they do not claim citzenship from this country. Closing this loophole is good regardless if only 10 people in the last 15 years abused it it is 10 too many. Anyway garuanteed we were probally warned off the record by our EU partners to sort it out because of that Chen case using the Good Friday agreement loophole.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by gaelic cowboy
Well as citizens they are entitled to certain rights, benfits etc etc non irish are not simple as that as they do not claim citzenship from this country.

I'm obviously typing too fast, or something.

Here's the question: what is it about Irish people that makes them better than non-Irish people? If they're no better than non-Irish, why are they more deserving?

Closing this loophole is good regardless if only 10 people in the last 15 years abused it it is 10 too many.

Care to define "abuse" for me, in this context?

Anyway garuanteed we were probally warned off the record by our EU partners to sort it out because of that Chen case using the Good Friday agreement loophole.

Got a source for that?

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian

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.

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.

A child not-born in Ireland and them moves to Ireland is an immigrant, but you say you think they should have a right to citizenship, if they are here for long enough.

But what about a child born in Ireland, never has to come here, and then lives in Ireland all their lives. You don't think they should have a right to citizenship?

That makes no sense.

If you think citizenship should be defined on the time one spends in Ireland, why did you vote for a referendum that denies citizenship to these children, no matter if they are born or spend all their lives in Ireland, unless they are lucky enough to have an Irish parent?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Wicknight

If you think citizenship should be defined on the time one spends in Ireland, why did you vote for a referendum that denies citizenship to these children, no matter if they are born or spend all their lives in Ireland, unless they are lucky enough to have an Irish parent?

I assume that the law dictates that the child can become Irish once they are in Ireland for X amount of years (Although is there an age limit on when you can apply?).

It does raise intresting questions though and will probably mean the law courts are going to be tied up more.

For example. Couple X are applying for citizenship. While the paperwork is going through they have a child. The child is not Irish, so is not entitled to benifits beyond what is allowed now.

Now the parent/s get citzenship, however the child is also no longer Irish. So they cannot claim benifits for the child for a certain number of years.

What happens then?

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

Er, hate to point this out to you arcade, but if what you say were true, then the referendum by your own logic would have been completely unnecessary. :rolleyes:

If they were staying for themselves, then they would have all stopped coming after the ruling last year, when it was decided that the parents did not have automatic right to stay in the state.

The justification by the government for this very referedum was that they didn't all stop coming after the ruling. Much to the governments confusion, the numbers coming over didn't disapper. The government realised that they weren't coming over for themselves, they were coming over for the child, to give him/her an EU passport

As has been mentioned before an numerous times, this referendum will not stop or discourage fake asylum seekers, non visa immigrants or any other form of illegal entry into the country. It makes absolutly no difference to the numbers of foriegners staying in the country

Zombrex

Originally posted by Hobbes


Now the parent/s get citzenship, however the child is also no longer Irish. So they cannot claim benifits for the child for a certain number of years.

What happens then?

THat is one of the main problems the Human Rights Commission has with the referedum, that it allows for the creation of large numbers of "state-less" children, who are not protected under the constitution, even if they were born here and have lived here all there lives, and as you say even if the parents have been granted citizenship

arcadegame2004

If they were staying for themselves, then they would have all stopped coming after the ruling last year, when it was decided that the parents did not have automatic right to stay in the state.

Not automatic. But even so the ruling was not entirely crystal clear. The ruling did not say that ALL such parents of Irish-born children could be deported, irrespective of circumstance. Nor did it say that the fact that the asylum-seeker has an Irish-born child could not be part of the justification for eventually granting the parent(s) residency and/or citizenship. There is anecdotal evidence that having an Irish-citizen child increased institutional sympathy in the various appeals-bodies that asylum-seekers make frequent use of after 93% of them initially fail their asylum-claims (as happened last year according to the Refugee Commissioner).

The Dublin Convention 1990 is an EU law that an asylum-seeker coming into the EU can only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry. Ireland is definitely not the first EU country of entry for someone coming from a Third World African country. Most of our asylum-seekers are Nigerian yet there are no direct flights between Ireland and Nigeria. Hence 93% of asylum applications are rejected. Yet around 21% of these rejections are overturned on appeal. I can only conclude that having an Irish-citizen child is influencing certain persons on the appeals-bodies - and it shouldn't. Hopefully this referendum will deter potential Nigerian/Romanian/Bulgarian/Moldovan etc. citizenship-tourists who would travel to Ireland (and have already done so in great numbers from Nigeria in particular) to gain citizenship for their babies, an EU passport, and a greatly increased chance of getting their asylum-claim accepted.

THat is one of the main problems the Human Rights Commission has with the referedum, that it allows for the creation of large numbers of "state-less" children, who are not protected under the constitution, even if they were born here and have lived here all there lives, and as you say even if the parents have been granted citizenship

I totally reject this concept that there will be huge numbers of "stateless" chilldren as a result of this referendum. The vast majority of the asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland, including from the countries I mentioned above, come from countries that have the jus-sanguine citizenship-law type. As such, in the same way that Irish people can pass Irish citizenship to their babies born outside of Ireland, so too can Nigerians/Romanians/Moldovans/Ukrainians/Bulgarians (these nationalities account for over 90% of asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland) pass their nationalities onto their babies. Hence, they would not become "stateless".

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The Dublin Convention 1990 is an EU law that an asylum-seeker coming into the EU can only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry.

Bollocks.

I've corrected you about this before, though at least you're getting the year right for the first time. The Dublin Convention is and was an agreement between EU member states that asylum seekers who did not apply in the country of entry could at the discretion of the country of application under most circumstances be transferred to the country of entry where their application would be considered instead. The agreement basically made it mandatory on the country of entry to accept the individual back where it was requested. It conferred no obligations on the asylum seeker, as you'll discover if you read it.

Additionally as I an others have pointed out, the Dublin Convention has been replaced since September 2003 by the Dublin II Regulations in all EU states except Denmark and hence still applies only in dealings with Denmark. Let me repeat that: it doesn't apply to Ireland unless we're sending someone to or receiving someone from Denmark. Just Denmark. Not any of the other 23 EU states exclusing us and Denmark. The Dublin II Regulations also involve an agreement between States for transferring asylum seekers back to the country of entry once certain conditions are met. It also confers no obligations on the asylum seeker, as you'll discover if you read that one (or even look up the idiots guide to the regulations available on the Irish government Oasis site).


As I've summarised L and O v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform already in a previous thread for your benefit and for those willing and able to read, I'll not go over that ground again except to state the obvious point from that decision that if applications were dealt with in a matter of months rather than years the State could deport any person refused asylum without any limitation. The fact that they don't is a lack of their own competence rather than a failure in any law. Stop leaving asylum-seekers around for enough time to pay off a car loan before making a decision on their cases and we don't even have to consider their additional rights as a result of putting down roots. It's so simple even a Minister for Justice could spot it if he didn't spend all day writing speeches railing against the Pinnies.

Seriously, stop presenting misleading unfacts (or lies given the repeated corrections on this very issue and the reasonable assumption that you're doing it deliberately) as actual facts and you can babble on to your hearts content

arcadegame2004

Sceptre, don't you think you are hairsplitting a bit by differentiating between the Dublin Convention and the Dublin II Regulations? They are not exactly dramatically different from one another.

And why do you think these rules (both the Convention and the later regulations) would have been drawn up other than that it was the opinion of EU member states that someone claiming asylum in other EU states than the one they enter first is most likely a bogus asylum-seeker?

MadsL

Arcade, I did warn you.

Sceptre, don't you think you are hairsplitting a bit by differentiating between the Dublin Convention and the Dublin II Regulations? They are not exactly dramatically different from one another.

Did you even read a) Sceptre's post b) The sources he posted or c) anything other than the Irish Sun?

And why do you think these rules (both the Convention and the later regulations) would have been drawn up other than that it was the opinion of EU member states that someone claiming asylum in other EU states than the one they enter first is most likely a bogus asylum-seeker?

Hmmm. Let me see. Better yet let me ask "why were they amended" Clearly the EU member states don't share your 'opinions'.

Any more lies you want to spread?

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Sceptre, don't you think you are hairsplitting a bit by differentiating between the Dublin Convention and the Dublin II Regulations? They are not exactly dramatically different from one another.

Nope. The more recent Regulations were put in place because of problems the older Convention had when the Schengen accords were implemented. There are quite a few differences in procedure as well as intent. The Regulations are four times as long as the convention. And there's the thing that the Convention isn't enforcable in 24 EU States because it's been replaced. If I was basing a line of argument on the Sales of Goods Act I wouldn't base it on the 1893 Act even if there are identical parts in the 1980 Act that replaced it. Even if the only one I'd heard about was the non-applicable 1893 Act. I'd go "oh" and read the newer one after someone pointed it out.

And why do you think these rules (both the Convention and the later regulations) would have been drawn up other than that it was the opinion of EU member states that someone claiming asylum in other EU states than the one they enter first is most likely a bogus asylum-seeker?

Neither Convention nor Regulations have anything to do with a "bogus asylum seeker"[1], they're both an available method of returning an asylum seeker to the point of entry. Not only do the Regulations (or did the Convention) not deal with "bogus asylum seekers", there's specific reference made to the six-month rule. Someone can apply for asylum at any point anywhere and at any time - that's in the Regulations as well. It's at the discretion of a country whether they wish to seek a transfer under the Dublin II Regulations or not (as it was with the Convention) and the Regulations bind countries, not individuals. There's no legal obligation on asylum-seekers to apply in the first EU State they enter.

So why were the regulations drawn up? For a start, if i remember rightly, the Belgians and Swedes wanted it There's a school of thought[2] (to which you may subscribe) that countries that never had foreign colonies shouldn't be obligated to take in any refugees at all. Obviously Belgium once owned all of central Africa when Leopold was king but that didn't stop them whinging about how they shouldn't have to make much of an effort in any case. The Swedes were obviously concerned about their welfare system. Hence a system was devised to send asylum-seekers back to the entry point if the application point wanted to, while taking into account (for settlement purposes) the minimum quantity of refugees each country had agreed to accommodate. It's a procedure between countries, not a binding arrangement on the actual asylum-seeker, whose right to apply wherever and whenever is explicitly guaranteed.


As an aside, frankly what I don't get is that in the thread on the EU constitution you are happy to admit that you haven't read it (or haven't read all of it, can't remember) and can put up posts where you specifically imply that an opinion is an opinion. Whereas here, however emotive the issue may be for you, you present opinions as facts and make misleading comments about cases and agreements that you patently haven't read. You'd come across a lot better if you freely admitted when you don't have all the facts, read the facts that kind souls are happy to provide and based your case on the explained facts. If you'd actually asked what the Chen case (for example) had its rulign based on, it would have been explained and you could have made a case without the accompanying bullshit. And then we'd have a coherent discussion based on the actual facts. As far as I can remember I've always been happy to ask the questions when I don't understand something and admit when I'm actually wrong based on a prior misconception of the facts. That's why even those who tend to disagree with me strongly on a given issue don't (usually, I expect) think of me as a wally. Where sheer opinion is involved obviously that doesn't arise. Why not give it a try.


[1]Obviously it isn't a legal term. One who seeks asylum is an "asylum seeker" (and is always an "asylum seeker" irrespective of their reasons), one who gains it is a refugee, one who is refused it is effectively a refusnik (you can call them a refused asylum seeker or possibly a bogus asylum seeker if they're refused but a refused applicant is probably a better term. If you must include the term "bogus" in there somewhere, put it at the end as they weren't bogus asylum seekers, they were asylum seekers with bogus grounds)

[2]That school of thought might be relevant to the discussion as a whole but not to the particular question so it's sufficient to mention that it's an opinion that exists for the purposes of the question