Reasons to vote "No"

rs

ok, after the tirade about the Yes vote I want to see the other side of the story.

Obviously some people voted "Yes" for racist reasons. Unpeasant, but a reality. However, I don't believe that 80% of irish voters voted for racist reasons.

I would like to know the reasons for voting "No".

From what I can see, most political parties urged people to vote "No" simply because the Government wanted them to vote "Yes".

It appears that people voted no because they believe it was racist to vote "Yes". I'd like to know exactly why this is.

My question is simply this.

Why should the child of an asylum seeker (who turns out not to be a genuine asylum seeker) have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen?

grumpytrousers

Why should the child of an asylum seeker (who turns out not to be a genuine asylum seeker) have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen?

Is one allowed to answer a question with another question?

Why Not? I note you don't use the word 'bogus' or anything, so if a genuine asylum seeker happens to drop a sprog in these parts, I can't think of a good reason to 'force' them to seek citizenship of the country they just fled for their offspring. Presumably if 'insert-name-of-country' was a s**t-hole for the parents and they fled, then the kids won't be too set on spending their summers there either.

Y'see the question you pose is a fair enough one, but like most of the discussion on this whole issue, nobody (on either side) seemed to have much in the line of answers. To Anything.

I voted No myself - not necessarily 'cos i'm a beardo, meusli eating, guardian reading pinko, but rather the belief that the manner in which the waters were muddied in the run up. I.e.

'The hospitals are at bursting point'

'says who'

'er - lots of people'

'such as'

'um - just trust us'

The other reason was that in general, constitutional referenda are tricky things. Get 'em wrong and we'll all know about it sooner or later. X Case anybody? This seemed to be introduced with sod all in the line of debate, little or no facts or figures presented by the main proponents of the move, complete disowning of their part in the thing in the first place by the masters of the hospitals....In general, it seemed a bit too rushed, confused and mussed up.

If the lot of us had voted No, then the government would have had to go back to the drawing board, present a coherent case for a yes vote, argue it properly (and i'm not saying it's not a case which can't be argued) and have it carried with a lot less of a bad taste left in a lot of mouths....

rs

I don't see why the child of a genuine asylum seeker should be denied citizenship. But then again, a genuine asylum seeker is obviously going to be staying here a while, so they should be allowed to get a job.

I also don't see why the child of any legal immigrant should be denied citizenship because their mum and dad have not lived in Ireland long enough.

But, at least this can now be changed with legislation.

Imposter

Originally posted by grumpytrousers
The other reason was that in general, constitutional referenda are tricky things. Get 'em wrong and we'll all know about it sooner or later. X Case anybody? This seemed to be introduced with sod all in the line of debate, little or no facts or figures presented by the main proponents of the move, complete disowning of their part in the thing in the first place by the masters of the hospitals....In general, it seemed a bit too rushed, confused and mussed up.

Imo debate was there but most of it was irrelevant tripe from both sides. They focused on getting emotional responses rather than thought out rational reponses from people. I think this is a problem with referenda in general in Ireland. Nice, abortion and divorce referendas have all had this. The facts will always be manipulated by various parties and groups to fit their ideologies. Even pulling these groups up on irrelevant views just leads to proper debate not happening and this tripe going around in circles.

If the lot of us had voted No, then the government would have had to go back to the drawing board, present a coherent case for a yes vote, argue it properly (and i'm not saying it's not a case which can't be argued) and have it carried with a lot less of a bad taste left in a lot of mouths....

And that's another thing, the government shouldn't be allowed to have a re-run of a referenda for a certain period of time (longer than a government term ideally). They should put their efforts into it first time and if their changes to the constitution and promotion of said changes ain't good enough, then let them wait X number of years before they get the chance again. Otherwise they can end up bullying their ideas through and/or get as near to their ideas as possible.

Frank Grimes

Main reason I voted no was due to the fact that I think anyone born here should be entitled to citizenship.
I did not see, and since have not seen, any logical reason as to why we needed to change our constitution to stop this from happening.
If there was an extremely valid, well backed up reason for a change to be made I would at the very least consider it.
I also think that changing the constitution for no apparently valid reason is not acceptable.

DadaKopf

I'm not currently living in Ireland, so I wasn't able to vote. So I haven't been immersed in the arguments in the direct run-up and fallout for and against. When I heard the result - nearly 80%! - I was baffled.

I would have voted 'no', generally on three grounds:
(1) There was no 'crisis', other than the failure of the government's immigration policy and social policy, which can be changed through legislation
(2) What are we whining about? Most 'asylum seekers' and 'economic migrants' go to neighbouring states which *really* can't handle them
(3) I really dislike the government and dislike McDowell even more. He's a pompous arse and I think Ireland could have and should have presented the world with a genuinely progressive immigration policy based on 'sound' humanitarian and humanist grounds

Imo debate was there but most of it was irrelevant tripe from both sides. They focused on getting emotional responses rather than thought out rational reponses from people.

I don't quite agree on this. I'm convinced there was a concerted effort on behalf of the government to limit the amount of healthy debate on the issue. By presenting the referendum as an issue of 'legislative coherence', a 'tidying-up exercise', people were conned into thinking the issue was merely a legal formality bringing us in line with the rest of Europe. Who can be interested in such a boring debate? Plus, a properly political public debate spells death at the polls.

Thankfully FF got shafted anyway.

What we really should have been asking ourselves, what we should have been voting on was the issue of citizenship in a normative sense - what kind of culture and society do we want? What does it mean to be Irish today? Perhaps if we opened up that pandora's box, we'd suddenly realise how prejudiced and unwelcoming we really are. How parochial we are. The result doesn't reflect popular support for the government, I don't think.

So until I get home next month, the impression I'm left with is that a small group of urban softies lost out to the crypto-racist majority.

rs

Originally posted by DadaKopf
So until I get home next month, the impression I'm left with is that a small group of urban softies lost out to the crypto-racist majority.

Explain how everyone who voted yes is a racist?

And then please explain how this huge generalization is so very different to someone believing that all asylum seekers are here to leech of the system?

arcadegame2004

As a "Yes" voter (like 79% of those who voted in a turnout of 60% which therefore equals an overall majority of the entire electorate) I voted "Yes" to remove the pull-factor that made Ireland a more attractive destination to illegal-immigrants than the rest of the EU, namely the fact that in Ireland - unlike ANYWHERE else in the EU and Europe - conferred national citizenship on ALL babies born to such immigrants in Ireland, thereby having the potential to influence the various asylum appeals boards etc. emotionally into letting the parents stay.

My determination to vote "Yes" rose still further when I heard about the Chen ruling by the European Court of Justice, whereby a Chinese woman resident in the UK was found to be immune from deportation from the UK because she had - admittedly on the advice of her lawyers, travelled to NI to give birth in the hope her deportation from the UK would be stopped on the grounds that an Irish/EU citizen was her child, i.e. since 1998, Ireland had conferred Irish/EU citizen on all children born on the island of Ireland, regardless of circumstance. The Court ruled that she and her husband had the right to reside anywhere in the EU, as a result of having an EU citizen child (Irish citizens are automatically EU citizens too.)

Thr "No" side pointed out that this was only a preliminary ruling by the ECJ's Advocate-Generale. However 90% of preliminary-rulings are upheld in the final ruling. They also pointed out that the ECJ referred to the fact that Mrs.Chen (the mother concerned) had medical-insurance and enough money to live on and would therefore not be a burden on the State. However, this doesn not convince me. It is unclear from the ruling whether this business of not being a burden on the State was the main reason for the ruling, or was it that her child was an EU-citizen? I wasn't prepared to take the risk of huge numbers of illegal-immigrants in other EU states trying to repeat Chen's example at the expense of at least our Health-Service, and possibly this time statying in Ireland and expecting to be housed etc.

Even if it did only apply to rich people, that is also a reason to vote "Yes" because otherwise there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. All the stranger then that the Irish Left (Labour, Greens, Sinn Fein) called for a "No" vote - and proved to everyone just how out of touch they are with the vast bulk of the Irish people on immigration issues.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
As a "Yes" voter (like 79% of those who voted in a turnout of 60% which therefore equals an overall majority of the entire electorate)

Aggh, I told you to keep away from maths didn't I?

79% x 60% = 47.4% < 50% < majority :rolleyes:

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Even if it did only apply to rich people, that is also a reason to vote "Yes" because otherwise there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Ah, the PDs would never espouse suich behavior would they. Not when barristers cost money. Or when rich people get tax breaks?

Wrestlemania

Why should a Nigerian Woman goto Belfast not enter the Republic ever and then claim citizenship of this country.


I voted Yes, why to stop this abuse, we were the only country to have such a law.

It may not stop asylum seekers but will make it harder for them to gain citizenship of the country through false means

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
It may not stop asylum seekers but will make it harder for them to gain citizenship of the country through false means

How?

Wrestlemania

Well for one a family cannot claim citizenship by means of a child been born here i.e.

A child was born here = Irish Citizen = Family also then getting Citizenship.

Now that loophole is closed well soon, so they can come here get a work permit then after 3 years get citizenship far enough.

Asylum Seekers the same as above but no other way.

TBH we are the Joke of the world as our citizenship is so cheap, makes the troubles in the north look non worthwhile for either side as our national identity will be lost at some stage in the future and we irish (i think) will be a minority.

pete

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Well for one a family cannot claim citizenship by means of a child been born here i.e.

A child was born here = Irish Citizen = Family also then getting Citizenship.

Now that loophole is closed well soon, so they can come here get a work permit then after 3 years get citizenship far enough.

Asylum Seekers the same as above but no other way.

TBH we are the Joke of the world as our citizenship is so cheap, makes the troubles in the north look non worthwhile for either side as our national identity will be lost at some stage in the future and we irish (i think) will be a minority.

oh dear god

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
A child was born here = Irish Citizen = Family also then getting Citizenship.

You've obviously missed all other posts about this here and a Supreme Court ruling from last year.

TBH we are the Joke of the world as our citizenship is so cheap, makes the troubles in the north look non worthwhile for either side as our national identity will be lost at some stage in the future and we irish (i think) will be a minority.

Do you think other countries give citizenship by birth?

I guess there were no rascist motives behind your vote either right?
And you've loads of black friends, think the Filipino nurses are the best thing since sliced bread and also think the Chinese are the greatest workers in the world, right?

Wrestlemania

Maybe not a bad thing as variety is the spice of life I agree...But these other nationalities forced themselve on ireland....okay maybe extreme in saying but 10 years ago we were a bog warrior nation, when we go affluent everyone flooded in.

That is a fact and about the high court ruling I am not 100% so bring me up to speed please :-)

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
but 10 years ago we were a bog warrior nation, when we go affluent everyone flooded in.

Would this be similar to the way Irish people were flooding out of the country up until that time?

Search the forum for supreme + court, there's loads of posts about it.
Basically it negates the reason you gave above for voting yes.

pete

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Maybe not a bad thing as variety is the spice of life I agree...But these other nationalities forced themselve on ireland....okay maybe extreme in saying but 10 years ago we were a bog warrior nation, when we go affluent everyone flooded in.

That is a fact and about the high court ruling I am not 100% so bring me up to speed please :-)

So... explain to me why you're threatening to beat up racists on another thread?

Wrestlemania

cheers I understand we left ireland to seek work etc.

but we did not claim citizenship and the majority worked there way in england,us,oz etc obviously there was spongers but not to the extent that the people entering ireland now....

Wrestlemania

Originally posted by pete
So... explain to me why you're threatening to beat up racists on another thread?

Because I am not, my wife is English and is half white half black.

What I am saying is it is now hard in say some parts of dublin to hear molloy malone.

If you think I am but I assure you not.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
but we did not claim citizenship and the majority worked there way in england,us,oz etc obviously there was spongers but not to the extent that the people entering ireland now....

The Ireland of 1000 welcomes, it's alive and kicking in you anyway.
BTW, I don't know the words to Molly Malone - should I resign my citizenship?

Also, most of my family who emmigrated got citizenship in the countries they moved to, I suppose they were in the extreme minority?

Wrestlemania

Funny Guy:D

pete

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Because I am not, my wife is English and is half white half black.

What I am saying is it is now hard in say some parts of dublin to hear molloy malone.

If you think I am but I assure you not.

I never suggested you were racist. I was merely asking a question.

Here - just to clarify.

You're jewish (grandparents moved here?), your wife is english and she is "half black", right?

Victor

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
TBH we are the Joke of the world as our citizenship is so cheap, makes the troubles in the north look non worthwhile for either side as our national identity will be lost at some stage in the future and we irish (i think) will be a minority.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Because I am not, my wife is English and is half white half black.

There has got to be a joke there somewhere along the lines of "Mr Kettle, call from Mr. Pot."

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
but we did not claim citizenship and the majority worked there way in england,us,oz etc obviously there was spongers but not to the extent that the people entering ireland now....

So how are there an estimated 40m Irish Americans then?

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
What I am saying is it is now hard in say some parts of dublin to hear molloy malone.

It's OK, we're working on making Temple Bar safer for tourists by banning such juggery pokery.

If you are so fond of the auld dub, wander down Meath Street, full of dubs (excuse the Russian deli at one end).

Wrestlemania

Everyone in America is Irish

Well they think they are.

I come from a mixed religon family.

English/Irish/Polish.

Relgion is not a factor for me or colour.

What I am saying is that for me it is hard getting used to all the nationalities but hey I saw a young coloured girl this morning on the way to school with a camogie Stick about 11 I would say, twas weird but nice to see as obviously she is trying to fit in and it is good for all of us.

Imposter

What has any of this to do with the reasons to vote no?

Wrestlemania

I voted to close the loophole no more no less.

bobbyjoe

Too late now but here's some resons for voting No.

The Taoiseach told the Dail that the government had no plans for any referendum in 2004 on February 17th.
Then just before St. Patrick's Day Minister McDowell announced that the government had decided to hold a referendum on citizenship

The Chen case can happen again anyway even after a yes vote even though it was used widely as an example (actually the only example I heard) of “citizenship tourism”.
No study about the intentions of asylum seekers who give birth here such as how long they’ve been in Ireland or what they are doing/going after the baby is born.
There wasn’t any proof there is a problem, just anecdotal evidence
A precedence has been set where the Government can propose a change in the constitution without telling us exactly what the change is we don’t actually really know what the Government intend to do if the change is passed. There is a proposed bill but nothing concrete.
We don’t know the extent of the “problem”
We weren’t given time to debate it properly (sorry no matter what anyone says two months is not long enough to debate a change it the constitution)
There were no all party talks
No green paper
No submissions from the public or interested parties
Our current asylum legislation isn’t enforced.
Promised legislation hasn’t been produced.
Recommendations regarding holding a referendum were ignored

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
No study about the intentions of asylum seekers who give birth here such as how long they’ve been in Ireland or what they are doing/going after the baby is born.
There wasn’t any proof there is a problem, just anecdotal evidence

We don’t know the extent of the “problem”

Does there need to be? With the old constitution it was possible to abuse the system. We don't know if people were or if they were, how many were doing this but it still was possible to abuse the system. Surely fixing even a potential to abuse is a good idea?

A precedence has been set where the Government can propose a change in the constitution without telling us exactly what the change is we don’t actually really know what the Government intend to do if the change is passed. There is a proposed bill but nothing concrete.

They published the wording of the change, how more exact can they get?

We weren’t given time to debate it properly (sorry no matter what anyone says two months is not long enough to debate a change it the constitution)

How much time is enough? Afaik there's a minimum time that is needed to give notice of a referendum and that was adhered to. Now if you think this should be changed then fair enough but at the moment that is the rules in place, like it or not.

There were no all party talks
No green paper
No submissions from the public or interested parties

You mean "No delaying tactics". There was some reccomendations which they didn't listen to though! And I can't see why those reasons in themselves are a justifyable reason to vote No.

Our current asylum legislation isn’t enforced.

Irrelevant

Promised legislation hasn’t been produced.

At last something that is relevant.

bobbyjoe

Imposter: We don't know if people were or if they were, how many were doing this but it still was possible to abuse the system. Surely fixing even a potential to abuse is a good idea?We don't know if people were or if they were, how many were doing this but it still was possible to abuse the system.

Exactly we didn’t know if it was being abused or not. What was the huge hurry? “fixing” a “loophole” at the expense of the current system. We did loose something here as well not just close a “loophole”.

Imposter They published the wording of the change, how more exact can they get?

Well the wording of the change basically says the in the future the Gov can change the rules to whatever they like. Not very exact, and not a good thing to have in a constitution in my opinion.
We weren’t even told there’s x amount of women coming here having a baby getting citizenship for the baby and leaving.
Little info I think we’d need to make an informed decision.

Imposterl: You mean "No delaying tactics". There was some reccomendations which they didn't listen to though! And I can't see why those reasons in themselves are a justifyable reason to vote No.

All party talks, a green paper, submissions from interested parties. These are delaying tactics!!!! What was the hurry anyway?

With regard to current legislation not being enforced as irrelevant I think its highly relevant.. Why make up new rules if we aren’t even following the one’s we have.

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe Exactly we didn’t know if it was being abused or not. What was the huge hurry? “fixing” a “loophole” at the expense of the current system. We did loose something here as well not just close a “loophole”.

What did we loose that cannot be legislated for?

Well the wording of the change basically says the in the future the Gov can change the rules to whatever they like. Not very exact, and not a good thing to have in a constitution in my opinion.
We weren’t even told there’s x amount of women coming here having a baby getting citizenship for the baby and leaving.
Little info I think we’d need to make an informed decision

The old wording had something similar. The government can change the legislation but if your parents are Irish you are guaranteed citizenship the same way as before if you were born in Ireland you were guaranteed it. It's just a switch in what is the main qualification for citizenship. Everything else is legislated for.

For me the extent of any abuse is irrelevant. Most of the Vote No groups have admitted there was the potential to abuse. For me whether one can prove theat it's being abused or not is irrelevant.

All party talks, a green paper, submissions from interested parties. These are delaying tactics!!!! What was the hurry anyway?

Governments can force a referendum whether they listen to reccomendations from all party talks, green papers or whomever and/or whatever. For me bringing something to commitee after commitee is just delaying the inevitable. It might get things worded a bit differently or get things that were ignored thought of, but it wouldn't change a great deal but it would take a significant time. I don't think there was a hurry. There are rules in place to deal with how fast a referendum can be called. What is wrong with these rules? The same calls were made about Nice. Why is more time needed and how much is enough time?

With regard to current legislation not being enforced as irrelevant I think its highly relevant.. Why make up new rules if we aren’t even following the one’s we have.

I don't see what enforcing existing legislation/asylum rules has to do with changing a part of the constitution. After all the constitutional change was nothing to do with asylum remember?

bobbyjoe

Imposter: What did we loose that cannot be legislated for?

I just happen to believe that anyone born on this island is Irish. That right has now been lost to children of non-nationals. True it could be legislated for later if we change our minds. Fact is I just don’t trust future Governments with this power and that the constitution should be able to protect us from some extreme party that could get into power in the future.

Imposter: There are rules in place to deal with how fast a referendum can be called. What is wrong with these rules? The same calls were made about Nice. Why is more time needed and how much is enough time?

Yes there are recommendation made by an Oireachtas committee and these were ignored. More time was needed to investigate the problem. I would at least like to know the extent of the problem if any and all of the options available. Maybe some people are ok with changing the constitution on anecdote but its not enough for me. Still don’t know what the hurry was.

Imposter: For me bringing something to committee after committee is just delaying the inevitable. It might get things worded a bit differently or get things that were ignored thought of, but it wouldn't change a great deal but it would take a significant time

By having all party talks other views would have been heard, maybe a better solution could have been found? Why bother having the Dail when the big issues are not fully explored.

Imposter I don't see what enforcing existing legislation/asylum rules has to do with changing a part of the constitution. After all the constitutional change was nothing to do with asylum remember?

I do remember, but the whole reason used for promoting the referendum was that we are being swamped by asylum seekers and “citizenship tourists”. This was shown in exit poles where yes voters reasons were shown to be; that the country was being exploited by foreigners 36%, too many immigrants 27%.
Therefore the fact that people have to wait years to be processed and not allowed work during this time (being made look like scroungers) would affect the result of the referendum.