The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I think that my knowledge of human-nature, and how humans will try to advance their economic position, tells me that the 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age who were pregnant on arrival in this State had citizenship in mind. The Nigerian President told Bertie that the Irish citizenship law was well known in Nigeria and was a major reason for the immigration from Nigerian to Ireland. He should know he comes from there after all. You are entitled to vigorously disagree with me but I don't think I am capable of being persuaded unless by detailed statistics. So roll on the detailed statistics. I agree they should be forthcoming. But even if they do support my case no doubt pin-pricked holes will be drilled into them by Irish Left. Oh well!
:rolleyes:

I think that my knowledge of human-nature, and how humans tend to try and bend facts and truth to suit their needs, tells me that if any worthwhile reliable statistics were available, they would have been published with any such statement as the one by the masters above.

Instead, what you get is a general waffle about how even though they never presented any evidence or facts to begin with, they were right all along. What does that tell you about the strength of their position.

Now, I'm not arguing about whether or not the referendum has any good or ill effect on this countries economics. I'm arguing the facts being suggested. In this case, they are no more reliable, nor empirical measurements of the actual fact of the situation than your knowledge of human nature.

In otherwords, whatever you care to believe, you really don't have anything but your opinion so noone should be suggesting otherwise, unlike your posts above.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Both are true! More detailed statistics are needed. However, I choose to interpret mike65's statistics as supporting my views on the logical outcome of removing the Citizenship-Tourists Charter from the constitution. That is my right.

You choose to interpret lots of things some very strange ways, don't you?

I think that my knowledge of human-nature, and how humans will try to advance their economic position, tells me that the 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age who were pregnant on arrival in this State had citizenship in mind.

Still keeping up the old mind reading, I see. Very good.

The Nigeria President told Bertie that the Irish citizenship law was well known in Nigeria and was a major reason for the immigration from Nigerian to Ireland. He should know he comes from there after all.

What, he's a mind reader too? Are you guys mind reading buddies?

You are entitled to vigorously disagree with me but I don't think I am capable of being persuaded unless by detailed statistics. So roll on the detailed statistics. I agree they should be forthcoming.

Since you are the one making definitive claims ("It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."), why don't you provide the 'detailed statistics' to support this claim?

They should, after all, be forthcoming. You can actually back that statement up, can't you? Right?

ps would someone else mind reminding this lad about who exactly the right to citizenship was removed from by this referendum. I don't have the energy right now. Thanks.

arcadegame2004

Pete, I already gave mountains of statistics in the original Citizenship referendum threads you will find them if you look there. In summary they showed:

A: 58% of the female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 in 2003 were pregnant when they claimed asylum. That can only be intentionaly when you consider they crossed loads of countries before getting here, especially the Nigerians.

B: 25% of Dublin births were to non-EU nationals before enlargement, even though just 6% of people identified in the Census of 2002 were non-nationals. Suspicious.

And finally we have our eyes.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Pete, I already gave mountains of statistics in the original Citizenship referendum threads you will find them if you look there. In summary they showed:

A: 58% of the female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 in 2003 were pregnant when they claimed asylum. That can only be intentionaly when you consider they crossed loads of countries before getting here, especially the Nigerians.

B: 25% of Dublin births were to non-EU nationals before enlargement, even though just 6% of people identified in the Census of 2002 were non-nationals. Suspicious.

And finally we have our eyes.

So which bit of that backs up your statement that "It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Well?

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again.

ps Can we have sources for the above quoted numbers too. It's not that I don't trust you to be accurate or objective.... Oh wait, it is.

MadsL

Dear God, will he never stop. :rolleyes:

Arcade, I was interested in something you said in a previous thread about "Greencard visas" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2211445&postcount=19

Van Gogh was actually exposing the endemic persecution of women in many Islamic societies, with their barbaric practices of wifebeating and honour-killings. For this he paid with his life.

Alternatively he was an media attention whore assh*le who repeatedly and consistently called Muslims goatfúckers "geitenneukers", which he justified by reference to alleged remarks on the permissibility of bestiality in a book on Islamic law by the Ayatollah Khomeini (although the term is a common derogatory word in Holland for people of Moroccan descent). In addition, van Gogh incurred the anger of leading members of the Jewish community by making comments about what he saw as the Jewish preoccupation with Auschwitz and by making jokes like "What a smell of caramel today. Today the crematoriums burn only diabetic Jews". When he was criticized by the Jewish historian Evelien Gans, he wrote in Folia Civitatis magazine: "I suspect that Ms Gans gets wet dreams about being ****ed by Dr Mengele" and expressed the wish that she would sue him so that she would have to explain in court why his remarks were false.

it illustrates the problems that make integration of Muslim immigrants into Western societies so difficult.

Yes, being repeatedly called a goat****er does make it a tad difficult to integrate. I wonder why you are so enamoured of him? Perhaps you secretly share similar sentiments??? Do tell.

Can I also recommend a subscription to The Economist, that way you may have some sort of a clue when it comes to Economics.

sceptre

Read me (specifically paragraphs 1 and 3). Thanks.

mycroft

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Pete, I already gave mountains of statistics in the original Citizenship referendum threads you will find them if you look there. In summary they showed:

A: 58% of the female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 in 2003 were pregnant when they claimed asylum. That can only be intentionaly when you consider they crossed loads of countries before getting here, especially the Nigerians.

B: 25% of Dublin births were to non-EU nationals before enlargement, even though just 6% of people identified in the Census of 2002 were non-nationals. Suspicious.

And finally we have our eyes.

DITTO. Arcadegame I'm calling your bluff I'm demanding you supply those things that are in scant supply in your Sunday Indo world, facts and statistics. I will drag the mods in this into this, And accuse you of lying if you are unable to provide supported links to back up your worldview.*

*your ignorant tasteless loathsome worldview.

arcadegame2004

mycroft wrote:

DITTO. Arcadegame I'm calling your bluff I'm demanding you supply those things that are in scant supply in your Sunday Indo world, facts and statistics. I will drag the mods in this into this, And accuse you of lying if you are unable to provide supported links to back up your worldview.*

*your ignorant tasteless loathsome worldview.

Oh dear. Okay I'll get the links. BRB

arcadegame2004

Got the links! Firstly to back up my 58% point, read page 3 on thethe following document from the Irish Dept. of Justice website:

http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/flJUSQ5YGJZK-en/$File/Information+Note+on+Proposal+for+Constitutional+Amendment.pdf

It shows in fact that in some months of 2003 the % rose to 61%.

Also, read point 12 on page 3, which refers to the grave concern felt by doctors about the mass-migration by non-EEA (the then EU and Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland) pregnant women due to the strain being artificially placed on the already massively overburdened health-service. The hospitals in this country have a hard enough time as it is with the crisis over beds etc. without importing patients who want to get citizenship for their child and then use that their babies as a means to an end, i.e. to get to stay here.

arcadegame2004

sceptre wrote:

Read me (specifically paragraphs 1 and 3). Thanks.

You are right Sceptre. Namecalling is totally not on.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You are right Sceptre. Namecalling is totally not on.

Hey, don't look at me for moral support. I'm strictly in the middle of the ring on this one wearing a stripey ref sweater. On a personal note, I've given up all hope of ever having a coherent discussion with you on this particular topic after you steadfastly ignored any actual facts I introduced before and after that auld vote we had last year so I'm firmly fence-sitting even in my ordinary user mode. I just don't see the point in banning otherwise sane people in mod mode if I don't have to. Frankly I reckon you throw around the word "obvious" far too much with little to back up the obvious nature of anything save where forced to support some of your claims (without actually ever supporting the "obvious" statements). That much is, er, obvious to a sane fence-sitter, as I've nicely and helpfully pointed out in the past.

Carry on with the circular hobby-horse-populated merry-go-round at your whim folks. Amateur number crunchers (as well as sociologists with an interest in outer-Pale geography (it's called "the rest of the country") and temporary end-of-gestation migration to Dublin) can take on the provided numbers if you feel like it, though I suspect it'll take the discussion precisely nowhere as it did last time we examined the exact same numbers with a toothcomb and magnifier. It would appear that not only does history tend towards repetition but that people actually like that kind of thing. I could talk about the nice time I had ice-skating on Saturday on my day off and it'd add as much extra and new to the ten month discussion of the topic on this board to be blunt about it. Add something new (of quality), give the only reader (assuming there still is one) something good to read - I haven't had the time to post much lately and this will remain the same for at least a few weeks so I feel like being entertained and informed. Otherwise why bother?

(all of the above can be summed up as "any chance of moving the discussion on rather than jumping back to stuff we discussed without resolution months and months ago?")

MadsL

Namecalling is totally not on.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you suggesting that I called you a name, or are you agreeing that Theo Van Gogh probably shouldn't have called a large group of the Dutch population "goatfúckers"?

Zombrex

Is it just me or does Arcades idea of immigration seem work on the princple that we should only let people into country if they don't want to come here

First we don't let in asylum seekers because it is impossible to be a "real" asylum seeker if you are actually in Ireland. We should only allow in real asylum seekers if they don't actually come here, because if they do then they aren't real asylum seekers.

Next we shouldn't allow in people from the enlarged EU states, because they are only looking for a handout. We should only let in people from the original EU states, the people who don't actually have any reason too come here, but who are quite happy to accept Irish workers (England, France, Germany anyone). The people who are now actually in the EU and have a right to come here shouldn't be allowed. Only the ones who have no reason to come here.

Why exactly do we have an immigration policy at all? Sure by definition anyone who wants to come to our country shouldn't be allowed in :rolleyes:

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Got the links! Firstly to back up my 58% point, read page 3 on thethe following document from the Irish Dept. of Justice website:

http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/flJUSQ5YGJZK-en/$File/Information+Note+on+Proposal+for+Constitutional+Amendment.pdf

It shows in fact that in some months of 2003 the % rose to 61%.

Oh look, it's a document produced by the department responsible for driving the amendment campaign. That's guaranteed to be spin-free and have impartial analysis.

Now, how about you go back through the old discussion about how 58% (or whatever %age) of a couple of thousand people, in the context of a population of several million, actually means damn all.

Also, read point 12 on page 3, which refers to the grave concern felt by doctors about the mass-migration by non-EEA (the then EU and Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland) pregnant women due to the strain being artificially placed on the already massively overburdened health-service.

It says no such thing. For starters, the phrase "mass-migration" appears nowhere in that document.

It actually says:

The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services.

As was later made clear, the Masters of the dublin maternity hospitals had gone looking for more resources, not less johnny foreigner patients.

The hospitals in this country have a hard enough time as it is with the crisis over beds etc. without importing patients who want to get citizenship for their child and then use that their babies as a means to an end, i.e. to get to stay here.

In. Your. Mind. Reading. Opinion.


So. Now that's out of the way, any chance of you responding to:

So which bit of that backs up your statement that "It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Well?

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again.

pete

sceptre wrote:

"any chance of moving the discussion on rather than jumping back to stuff we discussed without resolution months and months ago?"

One does one's best. Right about now, this is all i'm interested in:

So which bit of that backs up your statement that "It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Well?

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again.

The rest is just the same ole rhetoric.

Poker_Peter

pete wrote:

So which bit of that backs up your statement that "It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Well?

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again. QUOTE]

Yes it is a Dept. of Justice document. But then they are responsible for the asylum and immigration system so you would expect they would have the relevant info. So much of officialdom is appointed by the Govt so you'll have a fairly hard time finding national-statistics that don't come from someone appointed by government.

arcadegame2004

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again.

I wonder am I the one with the prejudices, since you seem distrustful of any authority that produces statistics that disagree with your views.

Let's hear some statistics that back up your side of the fence. I have done my bit :rolleyes:

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I wonder am I the one with the prejudices, since you seem distrustful of any authority that produces statistics that disagree with your views.

Let's hear some statistics that back up your side of the fence. I have done my bit :rolleyes:

are you taking the piss?

MadsL

"It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Asylum applications 2003

[FONT=Courier New]
Jan Feb  Mar April  May  June  July  Aug  Sept Oct Nov Dec
988 961 903  671  604   661   647  655   611  496 395 347[/FONT]

Oh, look - a falling trend has continued falling. It must be these magic 'anti-asylumsponger' beans I have in my pocket.

The reduction in asylum numbers attributable solely to the developments on the Irish born child issue is therefore impossible to determine.

same source as AG2003 quoted

Meanwhile we are at full employment and the Small Businesses are crying out for workers....

arcadegame2004

Meanwhile we are at full employment and the Small Businesses are crying out for workers....

Maybe the Irish unemployed would stand a better chance if they weren't in competition with cheap foreign-labour.

Assuming that foreign-labour is needed, are you seriously saying that we can't find enough workers from the 10% of Germans unemployed, 10% of French unemployed, 9% of Spaniards unemployed, 11% of Italians unemployed etc.? There are over 30 million unemployed people in the EU. Surely that alone can fill vacancies if they exist?

MadsL

Assuming that foreign-labour is needed, are you seriously saying that we can't find enough workers from the 10% of Germans unemployed, 10% of French unemployed, 9% of Spaniards unemployed, 11% of Italians unemployed etc.? There are over 30 million unemployed people in the EU. Surely that alone can fill vacancies if they exist?

Yeah, march 'em in at gun-point. :rolleyes: - it may have escaped your notice, but people are free to travel and work within the EU - that doesn't mean they have to. Perhaps the joys of Irish prices and working conditions are not all that attractive...

pete

edit: no, forget it. It's just not worth the time.

arcadegame2004

MadsL wrote:

Yeah, march 'em in at gun-point. :rolleyes: - it may have escaped your notice, but people are free to travel and work within the EU - that doesn't mean they have to. Perhaps the joys of Irish prices and working conditions are not all that attractive...

I am very sure that a lot of these people might come here if they were offered jobs. And that way, at least they wouldn't constitutecheap labour as their countries are at least as richer or richer than us.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am very sure that a lot of these people might come here if they were offered jobs. And that way, at least they wouldn't constitutecheap labour as their countries are at least as richer or richer than us.

Really?
How do you make out that the countries used as examples are "at least as richer or richer than us"?
The normal method of determining the relative wealth of a country is by measuring its national debt levels as a portion of its GDP- and Ireland's debt levels are below all of the listed countries.

Labour costs in Ireland exceed those of most of the examples listed (French, Spanish, Italians) and German costs are now on a comparable level post implementation of the Hartz reforms. The fundamental core reason a lot of companies locate here, is primarily to escape higher rates of corporate taxation- which is not a labour related cost.
This has been debated on this thread previously.

Availability of employment does not equate with a sudden unfethered longing to move here. I'd have to agree 100% with MadsL - the joys of Irish prices and working conditions are not all that attractive........

S.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Maybe the Irish unemployed would stand a better chance if they weren't in competition with cheap foreign-labour.

Assuming that foreign-labour is needed, are you seriously saying that we can't find enough workers from the 10% of Germans unemployed, 10% of French unemployed, 9% of Spaniards unemployed, 11% of Italians unemployed etc.? There are over 30 million unemployed people in the EU. Surely that alone can fill vacancies if they exist?

Why are these people better than Eastern Europeans (i.e. the enlarged EU states?). Why do you ban them from coming but let unemployed Germans in? Whats the difference?

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I wonder am I the one with the prejudices, since you seem distrustful of any authority that produces statistics that disagree with your views.

Let's hear some statistics that back up your side of the fence. I have done my bit

One must assume that your lack of response to my enquiry means that you actually aren't in fact taking the piss. Once again you have completely misrepresented what someone has said in a pathetic attempt to dodge the question.

Can i point out that it was you, and not I, that made a statement of fact, and I am now asking you for the third time to either back it up or withdraw it.

And so, one more time:

So which bit of that backs up your statement that "It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers."

Well?

Either back it up, withdraw it, or admit that it's just based on your own prejudices. Again.

GuanYin

pete wrote:

And so, one more time:

.....with feeling.


I don'tthink he can answer, he is supporting a position that is factually unsupportable at present, all he can do is pass vague rhetoric to re-enforce his stance and divert the topic hoping we won't notice.

That works at stormfront.org maybe, but it don't quite cut at boards.ie

C'mon arcade. Focusing soley on the last quote by pete, can you back up your statement?

MadsL

I also notice that Arcade hasn't distanced himself from the Theo Van Gogh "goatf#ckers" comments either...

arcadegame2004

MadsL wrote:

I also notice that Arcade hasn't distanced himself from the Theo Van Gogh "goatf#ckers" comments either...

I hereby condemn those remarks by Theo Van Gogh while simultaneously condemning the fanatical Islamofascism that led to his murder. No-one deserves to lose their lives solely because of something they said.

I don'tthink he can answer, he is supporting a position that is factually unsupportable at present, all he can do is pass vague rhetoric to re-enforce his stance and divert the topic hoping we won't notice.

That works at stormfront.org maybe, but it don't quite cut at boards.ie

The referendum demonstrated that people on my side of the argument are 5 times the numbers on the other side of the argument. This makes me feel vindicated. Clearly the Yes sides arguments convinced the people who matter, i.e. those who vote on the relevant issue. Those on the "No" side seem to me, with the greatest of respect, to be hardline pro-immigration persons. They are entitled to their views, however alarmed I would be if their policies on this issue were implemented.

C'mon arcade. Focusing soley on the last quote by pete, can you back up your statement?

I gave Pete a clear answer. You have to trust someone in life. Some on this forum evidently feel they understand the situation on foreign-births better than the Masters of the Rotunda, and the Department of Justice. I believe their claims, and I regard the statistics I quoted on this thread as sufficient evidence to pass the "balance of probability" test. In a civil-case, that test is sufficient to prove the case. The referendum should be seen as similar to a civil-case then.

My opponents on this argument, seem to prefer the criminal-case parallel of demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot provide 100% proof that I am right, but the balance of probability is on my side. I cannot deny gut instinct is also a factor. I will not apologise to anyone for that.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I gave Pete a clear answer.

Really? Where?

Do you even know what the question was?

ps you really are taking the piss, aren't you?