Reasons to vote "No"

arcadegame2004

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”.

How?

I have here a link that proves the child of Mrs.Chen would get automatic Chinese citizenship and therefore would not be stateless and hence would not be required to get Irish citizenship.

http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/wscl/ws_CHINA.html

Hence, as Chen did not have UK nationality, her child would get Chinese citizenship, though the Chinese rules are that Chinese nationals who have acquired foreign nationality can't pass Chinese nationality to their children.

So how could a Chen case happen again under our new rules? Cmon tell us...

bobbyjoe

arcadegame2004: So how could a Chen case happen again under our new rules? Cmon tell us...

Well in Chens case this was her second child. China has a one child per family policy.

http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/women_rr99_8.htm

Quote from the site linked to above "Without permission, a second child cannot be registered and, therefore, does not legally exist. The child cannot attend school (without payment of bribes) and later will have difficulty obtaining permission to marry, to relocate, and for other life choices requiring the government's permission. "

Punishment for having a second child.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/popcontrol.htm
"Chinese government has conducted a programme of population control through forced abortion, infanticide, forced sterilisation, forced use of abortifacient birth control, abandonment of children and deliberate killing of orphans through neglect. The programme is enforced through severe penalties for those who do not comply with the policy, including extortionate fines, destruction of property, imprisonment and even torture. "

From the Irish examiner Quote below is from the article

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...9k8WP7VrCJg.asp
"In paragraph 14 of the opinion from the European Court of Justice, it is made clear that Catherine Chen was not recognised as a national of the United Kingdom. In paragraph 21 it is clear that she is not recognised as a national of China, because China has a one-child rule. (That's one of the reasons that orphanages in China are full of abandoned babies. If Catherine's mother had gone home to China when she discovered she was pregnant, as presumably the supporters of our referendum would have wished, she would have been expected to have an abortion). So even if Catherine were born after the referendum, and after the new law had come into effect, she would still qualify as an Irish citizen because (like many other countries) we offer that protection to stateless persons who are born here. "

So when the referendum is ratified Chen could still happen.

Also from the site Arcadegame links to

"Birth within the territory of the PRC does not automatically confer citizenship. The exception is a child born to unknown or stateless parents"

and

"Child born abroad, whose parents have settled abroad and the child has acquired the nationality of the parents' new country, is not considered a citizen of the PRC."

arcadegame2004

Well as very few Chinese nationals were doing what Chen did, I believe that this referendum result has prevented those from Nigeria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Moldova amongst others from trying to repeat the Chen example - and they constitute the VAST majority of persons claiming asylum here.

MadsL

Arcade - forgive me if I am confused, but what exactly do you mean??
All of these countries have conditions which form a ligitimate basis for some claiming asylum. Nigeria is a country from which the Irish Government has sanctioned the ligitimacy of asylum seekers claims under the Geneva convention.

Maybe you should educate yourself as to the conditions in Nigeria

The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol provides the foundation of international refugee law. In Article 1, a refugee is defined as any person who:

“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail of the protection of that country”

Such conditions are also well documented in Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Moldova. (again)

So someone who is claiming asylum on well founded grounds would have no basis for 'trying to repeat the Chen example', as the majority of asylum seekers are from such countries that constitute examples of countries where the refugee is "is unwilling to avail of the protection of that country"


btw I see you no longer voted because of the 'free houses'

arcadegame2004

MadsL, I still believe that even if asylum-seekers are genuinely fleeing conditions like you describe, that they should only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry. I feel that to allow them to go from one EU state to the next looking for the most generous system, even after they have reached "safehaven" within the first EU state they enter, is an abuse of the asylum-system.

bobbyjoe

So Arcadegame do you agree with me about the Chen case?

Regarding this safehaven stuff I presume your talking about the Dublin Convention.
I believe this Convention was updated recently.

Anyway here's some examples of the Dublin Convention in action.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~calypso/refugee/europe.html

"You are an Iraqi Kurd being persecuted by Sadaam Hussein's regime. You smuggle yourself across the border to Jordan. You hide in the back of a lorry and spend several days there, fearful but relieved to be putting distance between yourself and Iraq. At the German border the German police discover you, but you don't mind at first because now, for the first time in days, you know where you are - you're in a safe European country and you can apply for political asylum. But something is wrong, you are being held in detention, and the memories of Sadaam's prisons are coming back. And then you are being told that you cannot apply for asylum in Germany because you passed through other countries in the lorry and you should have applied for asylum there. You ask what countries you passed through; you say that you did not know where you were, that you had no way of stopping the lorry, but nobody listens. You are being sent back to somewhere else, and that somewhere else is going to start looking at the lorry's route also, figuring out just how far back down the line you can be pushed. You're in a game of pass the parcel. Will you be passed all the way back to an Iraqi prison? "

"The Somali woman has heard about German policy and knows that her best chance of finding sanctuary is to get to the UK. Also, she has a sister in London, whereas she doesn't know anyone in Germany and she doesn't speak German. But her flight transits through a German airport for 45 minutes, and when she gets to the UK the British police tell her she should have applied in Germany - that was the first country she got to even though she never even saw any immigration officials in Germany. Her sister is waiting for her at the airport but is not allowed see her. She asks if she can appeal the decision and she is told yes - but she has to go back to Germany to wait for the outcome of the appeal. At least she is informed of the decision in her own language through an interpreter; if she was in France, she would be told the decision in French only, regardless of whether she understood a word of what was being said - figure it out for yourself."


Suppose the answer is tough ****?

MadsL

MadsL, I still believe that even if asylum-seekers are genuinely fleeing conditions like you describe, that they should only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry. I feel that to allow them to go from one EU state to the next looking for the most generous system, even after they have reached "safehaven" within the first EU state they enter, is an abuse of the asylum-system.

The EU disagrees with you, but hey, that's democracy. You now know better than to spout the Dublin Convention at me.

Perhaps you can blame the Irish missionaries who for centuries taught English and evangelised Catholism in Africa. How can you be suprised that Africans fleeing persecution seek refuge in an Catholic English speaking country?