Article: KKK welcomes Irish move to limit citizenship rights

In_Diana_Jones

Originally posted by Earthman
I agree and you know the ironic thing about this?
Yup it's the KKK's opinion on catholicism....
Whether you are lapsed or practising they'd have you burned to a cross aswell, because you may be Irish and white white,(woe betide if you're Irish and any other colour) but you're not an anglo saxon protestant....

Kinda says it all about the value of their opinion on matters in this country really...

Is there a trend with Mods on boards making sectarian comments?

Originally posted by In_Diana_Jones
Is there a trend with Mods on boards making sectarian comments?

whats sectarian about that?
I merely pointed out the irony of the KKK congratulating the Irish people when most of the Irish people are of a religion that the KKK would be totally opposed to.
I didn't give an opinion on any religion and therefore wasn't sectarian.
I merely proffered a fact as I understand it.

sceptre

Originally posted by In_Diana_Jones
No, it's what your beloved Sinn Fein and their good buddies the PIRA used to do to Prison Officers in the 1970's....as if you didn't know!

In all fairness, my car probably has at least six mercury tilt switches in it as well. Like lots of other uses for the things. It's not as though M_T called himself OldStyleTickingClock_WithABlueWireAttachedAsAHollywoodDecoy (or Fertiliser&Diesel). MT switches are cheap and reasonably reliable but no-one makes bombs with them any more unless they're especially impecunious bombers - they're more likely to use mercury free changeover tilt switches instead (more resistant to slight bounces as well so they probably don't have to be assembled on site).

As for your dislike for Earthman's post (edit: sorry Earthman, I see you're after getting in a reply before me), his comments are completely accurate. The KKK aren't famed for burning WASPs and you know (or should know) that he's making the point that looking for support from a pile of Irish Catholics[1] puts them in the same category as the imagined "Jew using the Black" that the KKK (and Illinois Nazis, movie fans) like to whinge about. Show where his comments indicate intolerance of Protestants or anyone except the fools in the KKK and you might have a point. Ditto mine. I called them a "wacky bunch of murdering rednecks" and I don't see that as unfair to people who are wacky, murdering or redneck. Shocking he number of people that didn't realise Randy Newman[2] was being sarcastic as well.


[1]Does "Irish Catholics" have a collective noun? A "church of Catholics" sounds as bad as a gaggle or even a flock
[2]Good Old Boys really is quite a good album, if only for the sarcasm that runs through it.

Actually
I have a milk pump here with a mercury tilt switch in it.
I'd forgotten about that and I'd not even remembered now 'till you brought it up.

Boardsie - it's so educational.

monument

Originally posted by flogen
true, you cant win as such, although you can outsmart your opponent and leave them speechless, as this guy seems to have done. It's usually through having better facts and research (and being able to use them to further your point), and just being good at twisting things and directing them to the way you want it to go.

Things like the BNP agreeing with current UK government on “multiculturalism”, doesn’t help. They, and most others like them, have adjusted their language - ‘multiculturalism’ = keeping different cultures away from each other…

…which is a bit like what the majority of voters here voted for. We have to do our best to keep the Irish culture and land pure [sic]. Actually the BNP’s, and KKK’s, PR work is on par to the justification to the yes vote.

There's one thing I have to admire about a straight talking raciest.

flogen

Originally posted by monument
…which is a bit like what the majority of voters here voted for. We have to do our best to keep the Irish culture and land pure [sic]. Actually the BNP’s, and KKK’s, PR work is on par to the justification to the yes vote.

Well it may have been the argument and justification for some (and not to turn this into another thread about the whole thing) but I voted for it because of the potential strain the health service could come over if there was a huge influx of 'citizenship tourists', I have no problem with genuine asylum seakers, or even for ones trying to take advantage as long as they are willing to work and not just sit around and get money from the government (god knows we have enough homegrown dole spongers, and i laugh at anyone who has a problem with foreigners 'taking our jobs' too). I also know that there is no current crisis of immigrant births, and any health crisis is a result of cuts and bad managment, but the fact was the constitution was open to abuse, so I wanted it fixed.

I'd like to think I was not alone in this stance, but I am realistic enough to concede that many people just 'wanted the blacks out' or something stupid like that. I can also see how the BNP and KK would support the yes side, and again, its sad to see.

If these are the kind of people who represent pure Irish or English culture then culture mixtures couldnt happen quick enough. I think different cultures have had an amazingly positive impact in Dublin, and I assume elsewhere too.

flogen

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by KBannon
IMO, if the KKK approve of an action then that was not a good action!

I see. Well Hitler liked alsations. So I suppose then a person has to avoid owning an alsation to avoid being "racist". And Hitler's wife Eva Braun had blonde hair. So I suppose then you think that going out with a blonde is racist too. Oh cop on will you!:D

In response to Gurgle, the Irish people did not vote "Yes" out of "confusion. The Referendum Commission poll was taken early on in the campaign and had been overtaken by more information by the time the Commission released it. Everyone I spoke to about the referendum knew exactly what it was about. The idea that we must allow all non-nationals in the world to become Irish citizens by turning up here pregnant is stupid and would place potentially unbelievable financial burdens on the Irish state, as well as giving new impetus to the rise in house-prices, with houses becoming less plentiful for the rest of us as a result of the State handing them to these cynical exploiters of our generous system. I do not hate other races. I despise the KKK and the BNP etc. I am utterly against violence against people on the basis of race.

You only have to look at the results of the RTE Exit Poll to see why people voted "Yes". And given a second chance, I would again vote yes.

Why? Because human-nature dictates that if Ireland were to be the nearest Western country to Africa to allow citizenship solely on grounds of birth, then the potential existed for large-scale migration to Ireland in pregnancy with that itself in mind. Now if the rest of the EU were allowing this aswell, it wouldn't have been such a problem for me, because then the cost of housing these people would have been shared among EU members. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between Ireland's citizenship laws and those of the remainder of the EU with regard to entitlement to citizenship on the grounds of birth meant that the burden of migration motivated by citizenship-entitlements would be placed on Irish shoulders alone in the EU. And is that fair for one of the smallest economies in Western Europe?

Almost all of those countries allowing citizenship solely on grounds of birth are countries built on immigration, i.e. countries founded by colonists, e.g. all of South and North America, as well as New Zealand and Australia. Two exceptions are India and Pakistan - although with thousands of ethnic-groups and languages there national-identity was never really based on ethnicity there.

Europe and much of Asia, however, are different. In Europe, nations are traditionally based on an ethnic majority. Switzerland is an exception to this rule, though perhaps the only one. That is not to say that Europe is "racist", just that national-identity has a different basis in Europe. I am very determined that Irish people with a relative born here should remain the majority of the population in Ireland. Unfortunately left-wing politicians who do not respect this difference between Europe and the so-called "New World" have pursued policies of mass-migration that ultimately spawned the rise of the Far Right,e.g. Vlaams Bloc in Belgium, Freedom Party in Austria, Alleanzo Nationale in Italy, Fronte Nationale in France, rising support for the BNP in Britain (over 5% in the Euro elections). I personally deplore these racist parties. But the Left in these countries have handed ammunition to them by the uncontrolled way in which they have created unnecessary costs for the social-welfare system and longer housing-lists as asylum-seekers received preferential treatment with respect to housing. Racist parties were bound to exploit this issue, but that is NOT to say that anyone angry about it is a racist. The Left have only themselves to blame.

In Ireland too, the Left would take us down this road. In spite of the clear expression of opposition to it demonstrated in the recent referendum. I firmly believe that the high (by Irish referendum standards) turnout of 60% was largely due to the issues relevant to the referendum. The exit-poll underlines the strong opposition felt by the Irish people to Ireland being the sole bearer of the burden of citizenship-tourism into the EU, whatever its scale. It underlines also, the concern felt at the implications of the Chen ruling, which might have led to the mass influx of pregnant asylum-seekers to Ireland, to claim in the ECJ that their deportation was illegal on the grounds that their child/children were Irish/EU citizens. Okay so there is dispute as to the exact implications of Chen, but the possibility in itself was unacceptable. At the very least it meant that a rich woman from outside the EU could stay in the EU by coming here pregnant. Is it not ironic that the Left were supportive of this ruling by the ECJ, given their much-vaunted commitment to "equality"? It smacks of passports for sale and one rule for the rich and another for the poor, if Chen means that any rich person can benefit as she did from our citizenship-laws. At most the ruling may have meant that anyone who turns up here pregnant can stay in the EU forever, provided they give birth here. The Left didn't seem very concerned about the potential (and probably current) pressures this places on an already overburdened health-service. And regardless of whether you think the Health-Service has enough money, surely what money it does have should primarily be for the benefit of Irish citizens, rather than those seeking to take advantage of a generous system?

We also voted "Yes" to send a signal to the politicians that we will not accept overly soft immigration policies. By all means allow some to come here via work-permits/visas if you wish to fill job vacancies that can't be filled from Irish or EU labour. But please dump those stupid proposals from the Enterprise Strategy Group for letting 400,000 non-nationals come to Ireland in the next FIVE years. I mean, five years! A few years ago they were telling us we needed 200,000. Now that we have 260,000 non-nationals, they are telling us we "need" 400,000. How can they know this? Economic growth ebbs and flows. They cannot possibly know what the economic situation in Ireland will be five years from now. Who would have predicted the US recession? Is cheap-labour the agenda here? I suspect that it may be. If you let 400,000 in during a 5 year period, and continue at that rate, then Irish people will become a minority in our own country. I hope that FG (who I voted for in the recent elections for the first time) will act as a counterbalance to the insatiable demands of Labour for unlimited immigration in the next Government.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Batbat
It was a recist referendum Im ashamed to be Irish

Agreed!

FF, PD, FG, BNP, KKK very little difference between any of them in my opinion!

ozt9vdujny3srf

I think you've all missed the point of why a lot of people voted no on this referendum.

It wasn't done out of primciples(as if FF have any), it was done in order to try and win back some of the "get them romanians out" eejits from sinn féin.

Although the referendum itself was not about something directly racist, it was done to gain the support of those with racist tendancies.

arcadegame2004

What does the word "recist" mean Batbat?

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In response to Gurgle, the Irish people did not vote "Yes" out of "confusion. The Referendum Commission poll was taken early on in the campaign and had been overtaken by more information by the time the Commission released it.

Coming from one of the posters who seemed to delight in posting misinformation here about the issues, the facts behind the issues, and virtually anything else related to the referendum, I find this comment to be highly amusing....only I'm pretty sure you didn't intend it that way.

Everyone I spoke to about the referendum knew exactly what it was about.

He says conveniently forgetting the myriad of people here on boards to whom he repeatedly told them that they did not understand the issues because they believed it was about different issues then he did.

Oh - and I'd appreciate it if people would lay off the Stormfront-bashing. You'll only encourage them to come back, and while it might be a great giggle for many of you, it doesn't make moderating the forum a particularly easy job at times.

jc

Gurgle

Posted by Arcadegit2004:What does the word "recist" mean Batbat?

After careful re-reading and consideration of the context, I believe it may be the word 'racist' slightly mis-spelt. Its great to know you're on the lookout to help everyone improve their spelling, as well as keeping Ireland pure.

In_Diana_Jones

Originally posted by Earthman
whats sectarian about that?
I merely pointed out the irony of the KKK congratulating the Irish people when most of the Irish people are of a religion that the KKK would be totally opposed to.
I didn't give an opinion on any religion and therefore wasn't sectarian.
I merely proffered a fact as I understand it.

Anything that marginalises any section of Irish society...as you did to Anglicans with your comment....is a sectarian statement.

Originally posted by In_Diana_Jones
Anything that marginalises any section of Irish society...as you did to Anglicans with your comment....is a sectarian statement.

Well then by your definition,I merely pointed out that the KKK were sectarian towards Catholics.
I made no personal comment against anglicans.

Hobbes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
What does the word "recist" mean Batbat?

I believe it means your pretentious.

bonkey

Originally posted by In_Diana_Jones
I think your name is incredibly distasteful

If you have a problem, then complain somewhere relevant. A thread about the KKK welcoming the result of a referendum on citizenship ain't it.

Also, considering the incomparable wit you show with your own name, you might want to consider a pot/kettle adage before persuing this line any further.

Furthermore - and this doesn't just apply to you - if you have a problem with the comments people are making here, then report the post and quit with this pointless bickering approach which is getting in the way of discussing the actual topic.

jc

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bobbyjoe

Wouldn’t take too much notice of the KKK congratulating us Eugene Terreblanche leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement did aswel.
Anyway aren’t Catholics next on their list after dark skinned people.

Still for the purpose of clarity there are a few hypocritical comments made that I’d have to pull up.

Arcadegame2004:
You only have to look at the results of the RTE Exit Poll to see why people voted "Yes". And given a second chance, I would again vote yes.

That RTE poll said the following:
63% of them voted to keep the foreigners out. 20% to keep in line with Europe whatever that means and 14% for the supposed “right” reason

Also one of the strategies of the far right is to disseminate and spread lies about minorities.

Arcadegame2004:
left-wing politicians who do not respect this difference between Europe and the so-called "New World" have pursued policies of mass-migration that ultimately spawned the rise of the Far Right,e.g. Vlaams Bloc in Belgium, Freedom Party in Austria, Alleanzo Nationale in Italy, Fronte Nationale in France, rising support for the BNP in Britain (over 5% in the Euro elections).

This is the funniest yet.
From a guy who says.

Arcadegame2004: yes I do believe they get free houses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1669381#post1669381

Despite being shown otherwise many times.

Arcade still going on about the Chen case even though its been shown to you that it can happen again anyway even after the referendum. But you conveniently didn’t bother replying to that post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1709324#post1709324

Sinner_Rez

I'm not sure if this point has been muted before. I started to read the whole thread but mine eyes did burn.

Can we just let the record show that pre the good friday agreement the power to decide whether or not being born in Ireland warrented Irish citizenship was already in the hands of the Oireachtas. When we had the referendum to decide on Articles 2 & 3 of our constitution that power was removed. This referendum basically returned the power to the Oireachtas to make that decision.

We did not vote to say that being born in Ireland doesn't make you an Irish Citizen, we voted to let the Oirechtas decide what should be the case.

So we were either racist before the Good Friday agreement. Or people still don't know what the referendum was about. Me, I think I'll go for the second answer.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sinner_Rez
We did not vote to say that being born in Ireland doesn't make you an Irish Citizen, we voted to let the Oirechtas decide what should be the case.

Well the amendment stated that birth in Ireland would not automatically mean you get Irish citizenship unless the Dail said otherwise. That did alter the position that previously pertained whereby such a birth would automatically mean Irish citizenship, regardless of what the Dail thought.

Or people still don't know what the referendum was about. Me, I think I'll go for the second answer.

We knew exactly what it was about after all the stories in the media circulating for years about Supreme Court challenges by Nigerian women who gave birth in this country to their deportation.

That RTE poll said the following:
63% of them voted to keep the foreigners out. 20% to keep in line with Europe whatever that means and 14% for the supposed “right” reason

36% of those who voted "Yes" said they did it because "Immigrants are exploiting the country". 27% said it was because of "too many immigrants", while 20% said it was because "people born in Ireland shouldn't be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship".

Being opposed to unlimited immigration into Ireland is not racist. The "No" side were unable to justify the automaticity of citizenship on grounds of birth alone, so they fought a campaign of insults in an attempt to smear anyone who voted "Yes" as "racists", together with trying to make out that there were very few actually taking advantage of our citizenship-rules. But the referendum was about a principle aswell, not merely how many were exploiting the rules. If, as they claimed, very few were, then why did they oppose changing the rules, since according to their claims, very few would be affected?

A number of "No" voters are claiming that this referendum had nothing to do with immigration. But if that is so, then why are the majority of the "No" side going on about immigration so much in their condemnation of the decision of the people on June 11th?

Cork

Originally posted by arcadegame2004 [/B]


Being opposed to unlimited immigration into Ireland is not racist. [/B]

It does not.

80% voted for the referendum. FF and FG supported it.

The socialist partys did not even manage to get their own supporters to follow the line they took aganist this referendum.

I am not too worried about the KKK. I really don't think they'll start organising here in Ireland.

The KKK along with oreganisations like the IRA should be consigned to the history books.

flogen

Originally posted by Cork
It does not.

80% voted for the referendum. FF and FG supported it.

The socialist partys did not even manage to get their own supporters to follow the line they took aganist this referendum.

I am not too worried about the KKK. I really don't think they'll start organising here in Ireland.

The KKK along with oreganisations like the IRA should be consigned to the history books.

what? Arcade agreed that it doesnt make you racist to vote for the referendum.... surely you know by know that he's a total 'yes' man on the referendum!!

flogen

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
36% of those who voted "Yes" said they did it because "Immigrants are exploiting the country". 27% said it was because of "too many immigrants", while 20% said it was because "people born in Ireland shouldn't be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship".

So 63% of people who voted yes did so for xenophobic reasons. Or did someone actually provide proof prior to the referendum that there was a problem with immigrants that was so severe it necessitated a change in the country's constitution?

Being opposed to unlimited immigration into Ireland is not racist.

No, it isn't. Voting yes because you feel there was an immigration problem however, without proof that there was a problem with immigration, was xenophobic.

The "No" side were unable to justify the automaticity of citizenship on grounds of birth alone,

Got a problem with the citizenship policy of the USA do you? Anti-american scum!

so they fought a campaign of insults in an attempt to smear anyone who voted "Yes" as "racists",

Whereas the "other side" fought a campaign based solely on FUD...
I'm not entirely certain which is worse, but I lean more towards the FUD side...

together with trying to make out that there were very few actually taking advantage of our citizenship-rules.

Well, seeing as how the people whose statements were cited as the cause of the referendum (the Masters of the hospitals in Dublin) publicly stated that they had not asked for a change in legislation, and seeing as how no figures were presented to show that there was a problem, that's a fully legitimate (and in fact correct) stance to take.

But the referendum was about a principle aswell,

Anti-american scum!

If, as they claimed, very few were, then why did they oppose changing the rules, since according to their claims, very few would be affected?

Very few people are murdered each year, relative to the population. Should we not bother with prosecution of murderers then, since so few are affected?

A number of "No" voters are claiming that this referendum had nothing to do with immigration. But if that is so, then why are the majority of the "No" side going on about immigration so much in their condemnation of the decision of the people on June 11th?

Because 63% of people who voted Yes did so on the basis of fears over immigration.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sparks
Got a problem with the citizenship policy of the USA do you? Anti-american scum!

I have already explained why the US is different earlier in this thread. And anyway, they are not in a freedom of movement arrangement with other states, unlike Ireland's arrangement with the rest of the EU. So it's not comparing like with like.

No, it isn't. Voting yes because you feel there was an immigration problem however, without proof that there was a problem with immigration, was xenophobic.

Well, seeing as how the people whose statements were cited as the cause of the referendum (the Masters of the hospitals in Dublin) publicly stated that they had not asked for a change in legislation, and seeing as how no figures were presented to show that there was a problem, that's a fully legitimate (and in fact correct) stance to take.

People like you will always demand 100% proof before you would accept that the system was being abused in respect to citizenship-rules. In a court of law, you dont have to have 100% certainty to make a finding of guilt or innocence, but rather, there needs to be reasonable doubt to acquit a person, and the absence of reasonable doubt to convict a person. The Irish people, acting as a jury (to coin a phrase) ruled on June 11th that there was not - in their opinion - reasonable doubt that our system was being abused. 20% of the "jury" said otherwise. The people are the arbiters of whether the system needed to be changed or not, and they replied "Yes" in their wisdom.

You are entitled to your liberal views on immigration. However, having already let in 200,000 legally, and 60,000 asylum-seekers, I would like to ask where exactly do you draw the line with respect to the numbers you would allow into this country? Where does it end? And where is the money supposed to come from to house all these people? And why should the hard-pressed would-be Irish homebuyers have to endure all this foreign competition for Irish housing/hospital beds? We have a right to put our own interests first, as does any country.

Cork

The reason that swung the Yes vote was that all other countries across the EU did not grant automatic citizenship.

People did not want Ireland to become a gateway for EU citizenship.

Exit polls are not very reliable. When people vote they really don't want to be asked their reasons.

They wnt to get away after performing their civic duty.

Hopefully eletronic voting will do away with these worthless polls.

BlitzKrieg

Originally posted by Earthman
I agree and you know the ironic thing about this?
Yup it's the KKK's opinion on catholicism....
Whether you are lapsed or practising they'd have you burned to a cross aswell, because you may be Irish and white white,(woe betide if you're Irish and any other colour) but you're not an anglo saxon protestant....

Kinda says it all about the value of their opinion on matters in this country really...

and on a side note of this to be Irish (according to equal employment forms i've filled out while applying for work in england) Is a different Ethnic Origin to being white or black. So if someone screams white supremacy kindly explain your not white your irish and therefore offended.

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
they are not in a freedom of movement arrangement with other states, unlike Ireland's arrangement with the rest of the EU. So it's not comparing like with like.

So US citizens are not permitted to travel outside their own borders then?

People like you will always demand 100% proof before you would accept that the system was being abused in respect to citizenship-rules.

What makes you think that? I stated that there has been absolutely no proof provided prior to the referendum, despite repeated public requests for that proof to be provided. How does asking for any proof get transformed to requiring absolute proof?

In a court of law, you dont have to have 100% certainty to make a finding of guilt

On the contrary. In criminal court, you have to be certain past any reasonable doubt to find someone guilty. Finding them innocent just doesn't happen. A court may not find you innocent, because an axiom of the legal system is that you are already innocent unless proven otherwise.
It's an interesting analogy to our specific discussion here in fact. A court requires proof past a reasonable doubt before changing your status as innocent. We, however, were asked to make a change to the citizenship laws without any proof, let alone proof past a reasonable doubt.

The Irish people, acting as a jury

No, that's not correct. Juries adhere to more rules regarding arriving at a decision and are subject to legal review. Coin a different phrase, please, one which does not ascribe a level of rigour to the decision that was simply not present on the 11th.

I would like to ask where exactly do you draw the line with respect to the numbers you would allow into this country? Where does it end? And where is the money supposed to come from to house all these people?

Related questions those. But perhaps my "liberal attitude" would be better explained by asking a further question to your good self:

Who's going to pay for your pension when the demographics of this state clearly show that there will be insufficent people working to support those people who are retired? Are you going to continue the recent trend of pushing the mandatory retirement age further and further back? Or are you going to encourage immigration for the workers it brings into this country so that their taxes can pay for you after you retire?

See, it's not so much a liberal attitude that I have as a pragmatic one.

We have a right to put our own interests first, as does any country.

Indeed. Thing is, that's not what we did on the 11th.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sparks
Who's going to pay for your pension when the demographics of this state clearly show that there will be insufficent people working to support those people who are retired? Are you going to continue the recent trend of pushing the mandatory retirement age further and further back? Or are you going to encourage immigration for the workers it brings into this country so that their taxes can pay for you after you retire?

Well if we need immigrants, I think we should concentrate on trying to lure home some of the 1.8 million Irish citizens scattered throughout the world. At least then Irish people remain a majority in their own country. It is an uncontroversial form of immigration that I would not object to, since it does not have the identity-undermining effects mass foreign immigration would have. We have no way of knowing how foreign immigrants would vote in a future referendum on a United Ireland. I don't want to take the risk that such a referendum could be defeated purely because of foreign votes.

I have already proposed universal health-insurance which would help address the cost of health issue. And I believe that a reduction in the role of the State with regard to pensions would help resolve that issue too, i.e. compulsory private pension contributions. And anyway, you cannot know for certain that Irish birth rates will remain static or fall. I also firmly believe that the privatisation of the vast bulk of the public-sector would allow us to add to the National Pensions Reserve Fund, as well as allowing us to drastically cut public-spending relevant to the public-sector (as the public-sector will then be far smaller). The NPRF after all is supposed to be saving up for a rainy day isn't it.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And I believe that a reduction in the role of the State with regard to pensions would help resolve that issue too, i.e. compulsory private pension contributions.

Wouldn't that disadvantage the poor? Effectively in the form of a reduction in social-contribution cost by the rich?

jc

lucernarian

I believe in ultimate equality. I will draw 1 conclusions from that statement:

That immigrants should be treated exactly like Irish people in every way. They should have unlimited access to work and they should not be given preference for free housing. Their country of origin should not either help or hinder any social welfare claims.

I also believe in unlimited cultural immigration. Any person in the world who wants to partake in Irish society, life and culture should be allowed to come here and become citizens. They should be fully compatible with society, i.e. they need to make the effort by learning fluent english and to a certain extent taking part in the local community. IMO this is true from a national perspective as well as an international perspective. People moving from one part to another part of a country should give something positive to the community.

If you think about it this might pacify the far-right while implementing liberalist ideas.