The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

Nybras

sceptre wrote:

Cute. You're treading the thin line of abuse so be careful whether you take a step left or right on your next post (your local moderator who doesn't see a need for orders to stick anything up anywhere unwillingly is watching carefully).

Even if that isn't a scaremongering load of babble as the above have tended towards.

Also I'm afraid the "I'm half-black/blue/white/purplepolkadot" card isn't equivalent to a "I can't be racist, see" card. Not in realityland where I live (it's based in Ireland but there are foreigners who are citizens of realityland too)


There isn't a single asylum-seeker in this country who has a work permit. There probably isn't a single asylum-seeker in the EU who has a work permit. Not while they're still asylum-seekers. I suspect you're getting your terms and/or understanding mixed up slightly.

He was making a Point of me been racist, which I’m not
So that’s where he can point that particular view, ok?

therecklessone

Nybras wrote:

Never the less, I don’t want them here.

And I don't want you here you bigot, but what you want and what you get are two different things.

sceptre

Nybras wrote:

So that’s where he can point that particular view, ok?

Actually if you read back up the page he called your views as posted (and therefore your post) racist which isn't quite the same thing. There are few other ways to interpret "Take a walk up O’Connell street, it’s riddled with them", assuming you're not talking about the Irish you referred to in your previous sentence (personally I have problems telling the difference (on sight) between some random person of dark skin pigmentation or some random Asian and an asylum seeker/layabout/person without work permit/person riding us all rotten by paying four times what our locals do for medical training while they're here/tourist from another country excluding the United States/foreign businessman wandering around/member of Mis-Teeq and hence my difficulty)

Now, let's move on. Let's play like adults even if we're not.

MadsL

Alex27 wrote:

There been a substancial drop from mid of 2003 till now in the numbers of asylum applications lodged. From nine hundred plus to three hundred plus. Right after Supreme Court and Minister decisions. And that is quiet interesting correlation.

And dependant on a number of factors; I repeat the quote from the Information Note:

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

Information Note on Proposal for Constitutional Amendment

There are no elephants in Ireland therefore that must be because of our magic anti-elephant tree...

GuanYin

Nybras wrote:

I’m not a racist first of all as you picked me up wrong there.
Asylum seekers are no use to this country, unless they have a work permit. The kind of work they do get is fast food joints, selling the big issue and if they can’t get a job their living off the social welfare.

And who do you proposes replaces them when you kick em all out? The Irish people seem to see these positions as beneath them now. How many Irish people, even students, are willing to work in Centra or McDonalds these days? Very few, or at leats very few full timers anyway.
I think Fight Club said it all

Tyler Durden wrote:

Look . . . the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fu** with us.

I have no problem with Europeans working in this country, what ever their colour.

Wow, so ok, some Europeans contribute exactly the same problems as you perceive for non-EU types in terms of crime and scamming, its just easier for them to do. Whats the difference?

Investment from USA or other European countries is fine, but the idea as you said of maybe non- European investing in this country, does not give right of way for there people to come work here either.

No but the amount of scammers vs the amount of decent honest hard working people is tiny. So why not just let the authorities weed out the troublemakers, as they would for any nationality, and not tar everyone with the same brush?

The ones keeping the health system afloat, they’ll come here for a while to study before going back to their own country to doctor their own.

You think thats it? We need them for 101 reasons, not least of all if they weren't over here paying insane fees, the number of Irish med students would half, because the reality is, universities can't fund the course themselves.

So they study here, pay for our med students, work in our hospitals keeping our dreadful health system afloat and when they want to go home you begrudge them what they've learned? You really have no clue do you?

You'll be talking about genetics next :rolleyes:

sceptre wrote:

Also I'm afraid the "I'm half-black/blue/white/purplepolkadot" card isn't equivalent to a "I can't be racist, see" card. Not in realityland where I live (it's based in Ireland but there are foreigners who are citizens of realityland too)

Damn and double damn, I was kinda banking on that for when I play my "I'm not racist, I just hate all white people" card....

Alex27

Since situation haven`t really change in 2003 in the main 5 countries mentioned in statistics nor immigration/asylum policies have changed in EU and US or any other region that is recipient for a substancial number of asylum seekers from the aforementioned countries it is reasonable at least draw some conslusion between Supreme Court Decision and numbers of asylum seekers. Almost half of the asylum seekers were woman according to the statistics and some of them most probably came with their families. Many been pregnant. So my observation have logic in it.



Imho the reason why dept of justice `could not` ascertain the numbers in question were their desire to use loads of children coming thingy. Sort of unimaginable number that can strain economy, hospitals, etc Plus some people given numbers could realise that the main factor behind some people giving birth in Ireland was their desire to obtain permission for them and their family to stay here. Sad but true. And there might be only few so called citizenship tourists who would come with a sole purpose to give irish citizenship to their kid.

The_Conductor

A few figures for you from the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street.

Year to January 2005 total births 8420
Percentage born to non nationals prior to referendum 21%
Percentage born to non nationals post referendum 21%

Births to non-nationals are constant at 21%, however the percentage to non-EU has dropped from 16% to 5% and for EU (inclusive of New Assession States) from 5% to 16%.

Source: http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?src=ez&link=65363&level=4&id=6796

MrPudding

smccarrick wrote:

A few figures for you from the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street.

Year to January 2005 total births 8420
Percentage born to non nationals prior to referendum 21%
Percentage born to non nationals post referendum 21%

Births to non-nationals are constant at 21%, however the percentage to non-EU has dropped from 16% to 5% and for EU (inclusive of New Assession States) from 5% to 16%.

Source: http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?src=ez&link=65363&level=4&id=6796

Hmmm, it's almost like nothing has changed. How very strange. Well, I'm glad we got that referendum passed. It obviously doing the job.

MrP

GuanYin

smccarrick wrote:

A few figures for you from the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street.

Year to January 2005 total births 8420
Percentage born to non nationals prior to referendum 21%
Percentage born to non nationals post referendum 21%

Births to non-nationals are constant at 21%, however the percentage to non-EU has dropped from 16% to 5% and for EU (inclusive of New Assession States) from 5% to 16%.

Source: http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?src=ez&link=65363&level=4&id=6796

Anyone else see the flaw, or at least weird quirk in those stats?

A Dub in Glasgo

Yep, the total for outside the now enlarged EU has stayed constant at 5%

PaulHughesWH

omnicorp wrote:

Can I just take this chance to say That I am disgusted by the people who voted yes in the Referendum.
If this were an International law I wouldn't have been a citizen of any country until I was 4 as I was born in the US and then moved to Scotland and then Ireland.

Remember, Bad laws are elected by good citizens who don't vote.
I blame it on a low turnout.

Well now we can reap the damages...

First of all this poll is a sham, because the question does not repeat the question which was asked in the Referendum, but blandly asks "would you vote yes or no again"?

Second of all, I voted yes, and I am proud not to let any ultra-liberals or far-left terrorists coerce me into imposing mass immigration on this country.

pete

PaulHughesWH wrote:

First of all this poll is a sham, because the question does not repeat the question which was asked in the Referendum, but blandly asks "would you vote yes or no again"?

Are you having trouble understanding the question or something? The poll isn't intended to repeat the question asked in the referendum - it's asking would individuals vote the same way again. It's really not that complicated.

Second of all, I voted yes, and I am proud not to let any ultra-liberals or far-left terrorists coerce me into imposing mass immigration on this country.

That's nice. It has absolutely nothing to do with either the referendum or this poll, but i hope it works out for you anyway.

The_Conductor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep, the total for outside the now enlarged EU has stayed constant at 5%

Nope- you can't exactly say that.
The accession states straddled both sides of the referendum.
The most noted statistic (in so far as you can call it a statistic) is the dramatically lower number of Africans presenting themselves at Holles Street.
But this statement is itself a misnomer- because it does not give you a before and after figure.

At best its hearsay- unless someone would care to clarify the statement from Holles Street- but its interesting nonetheless.

S.

pete

smccarrick wrote:

The accession states straddled both sides of the referendum.

Explain please?

The_Conductor

pete wrote:

Explain please?

I mean the figures for the acession states were counted as Non-EU prior to the referendum- and then subtracted from the Non-EU and added to the EU non-national, post the referendum- I should have phrased what I intended to say a little better perhaps. (see below)

The actual figures are essentially meaningless, unless we are able to track them over the course of the year- both before and after the referendum, by nationality. The only comment along these lines is:

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?src=ez&link=65363&level=4&id=6796 wrote:

A major drop in the number of non-national mothers from outside the EU giving birth here has been recorded since the ‘yes’ vote in the citizenship referendum last year, according to the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street.
"The citizenship issue has changed things around dramatically-it has been a complete turnaround, with many of the EU mothers coming from the new accession states and fewer Nigerians now giving birth."

Essentially the information contained in the article is meaningless bumpf- its hinting at things, without giving any solid information. "Fewer Nigerians" could be 1 or 2 fewer- or it could be 2238 fewer- I don't know, you don't know- so the information is meaningless.

Re: Acession members- they comprised part of the 16% prior to 11th June and part of the different 16% post 11th of June- thats what I meant by them straddling the referendum.

Its all old news now anyway- I was almost sorry when this thread was resurrected- that mis-spelling of citizenship in the title really does my head in.

pete

smccarrick wrote:

I mean the figures for the acession states were counted as Non-EU prior to the referendum- and then subtracted from the Non-EU and added to the EU non-national, post the referendum

ahem

The_Conductor

Only info I can find is 5471 non-national births in 2003 (it was not broken down by nationality- the birth notification form did not have a space for querying the nationalities of the parents.

Of the 5471 births in Ireland to non-nationals, citizenship was claimed on behalf of 548 children (almost exactly 10%). However number of births includes EU citizens.

Unfortunately due to the fact that no figures were kept up to 2003- its totally impossible to draw any inferences as to trends- because we have no idea which figures were trending in which area.

Its a wonderful policy- don't ask the questions that you really do not want to hear the answers to........

S.

The_Conductor

pete wrote:

ahem

Mea culpa!

shoegirl

smccarrick wrote:

Only info I can find is 5471 non-national births in 2003 (it was not broken down by nationality- the birth notification form did not have a space for querying the nationalities of the parents.

Of the 5471 births in Ireland to non-nationals, citizenship was claimed on behalf of 548 children (almost exactly 10%). However number of births includes EU citizens.

Unfortunately due to the fact that no figures were kept up to 2003- its totally impossible to draw any inferences as to trends- because we have no idea which figures were trending in which area.

Its a wonderful policy- don't ask the questions that you really do not want to hear the answers to........

S.

Excellent points. Part of the problem I see is in defining what is "true" and what is "hearsay." Like the mythology about vast sums being given through social welfare to asylum seekers. What I find truly frightening is the profile of many of the people who believe and propograte these myths.

Last week I sat in a room of young women aged 24-32. All were working class lesbians from outside Dublin. One was a lone parent. Yet each one of them swore as fact that asylum seekers deliberately got pregnant, deliberately got half of Irish teenage girls in Listowel pregnant ("that is fact" one of them insisted), got cars for free if they were living outside urban areas (apparently the evidence for this is that they are all driving cars over 10 years old), that they were getting "all" the social housing and then were claiming the dole. Now no amount of me trying to get through that all of this was unsubstantiated rumour could convince them otherwise. Eventually 2 of them admitted that they were frightened by black people. I think this fear of the unknown stranger is possibly the root of the problem. They are actually afraid (even though it is an unreasonable fear) and try to deal with this by buying into the current trend of racial hate.

Now part of the problem now is that the very fact of a referendum was seen as evidence that there was a problem, which itself lent credence to the myths I have described above. I have tried to get through to my friends that if somebody made a blanket statement about gay people or lone parents that suggested they were ALL spongers, they would be angry, but unfortuantely people choose to not think about that as a similar scenario. The thousands of people in Ireland who claim social welfare long term don't like to think of themselves as spongers, yet many of them are quick to label other recipients as such.

Has anybody had much luck in tackling attitudes like those above? I am finding it very difficult to tackle them as the sheer number of people expressing these deeply rascist opinions is lending credence to the myths being pumped around Ireland.

Roisin Dubh

Hi shoegirl.

Last week I sat in a room of young women aged 24-32. All were working class lesbians from outside Dublin. One was a lone parent. Yet each one of them swore as fact that asylum seekers deliberately got pregnant, deliberately got half of Irish teenage girls in Listowel pregnant ("that is fact" one of them insisted), got cars for free if they were living outside urban areas (apparently the evidence for this is that they are all driving cars over 10 years old), that they were getting "all" the social housing and then were claiming the dole. Now no amount of me trying to get through that all of this was unsubstantiated rumour could convince them otherwise. Eventually 2 of them admitted that they were frightened by black people. I think this fear of the unknown stranger is possibly the root of the problem. They are actually afraid (even though it is an unreasonable fear) and try to deal with this by buying into the current trend of racial hate.

I personally wouldn't consider myself "frightened" of black people. Even so I voted "Yes" and would do so again, no - a thousand times again. Why you ask?

Because irrespective of the costs, it subverts national sovereignty to allow non-Irish people to automatically "make" someone a citizen, without any say by the Irish state. The old system culminated in the Chen ruling of the European Court of Justice, which ruled that because Men Levette Chen (a Chinese businesswoman in the UK) now had rights of EU citizenship arising from the Irish/EU citizenship of her child, which got that citizenship under the then Irish law granting automatic citizenship to all children born on the island of Ireland.

Now part of the problem now is that the very fact of a referendum was seen as evidence that there was a problem, which itself lent credence to the myths I have described above. I have tried to get through to my friends that if somebody made a blanket statement about gay people or lone parents that suggested they were ALL spongers, they would be angry, but unfortuantely people choose to not think about that as a similar scenario. The thousands of people in Ireland who claim social welfare long term don't like to think of themselves as spongers, yet many of them are quick to label other recipients as such.

Has anybody had much luck in tackling attitudes like those above? I am finding it very difficult to tackle them as the sheer number of people expressing these deeply rascist opinions is lending credence to the myths being pumped around Ireland.

Regarding the claim about "spongers", what I say is that since the changes to the social-welfare rules i.e. introduction of the 2 year waiting time for non-nationals to get social-welfare, and the citizenship referendum, there seems to have been a hefty fall in the number of asylum-claimants. Why do you think that is? The terms "cause and affect" spring to mind.

I have nothing against blacks but logic dictates that most of them in Ireland were not born here. Hence, when people see them, the thought "probably an asylum-seeker" inevitable comes to mind. This is hardly surprising after 6 years or so of Nigerians constituting the single largest nationality of origin of asylum-seekers.

Ireland was simply bringing its citizenship-laws into line with the rest of the EU and indeed, the rest of Europe. If we are wrong to have this law, then so too are the other 40 or so countries of Europe and 24 of the EU. Are you accusing them of racism?

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Because irrespective of the costs, it subverts national sovereignty to allow non-Irish people to automatically "make" someone a citizen, without any say by the Irish state.

And what, say, of a child born outside Ireland to parents who are also not born in Ireland, but where one grandparent was.

The old system culminated in the Chen ruling of the European Court of Justice, which ruled that because Men Levette Chen (a Chinese businesswoman in the UK) now had rights of EU citizenship arising from the Irish/EU citizenship of her child, which got that citizenship under the then Irish law granting automatic citizenship to all children born on the island of Ireland.

Yes - the Chen ruling which basically said that if you can prove that you will be no burden on the State, then the State shouldn't deny your right to remain despite your not being a dependant of a person with the right to remain, but rather where the person with the right to remain is dependant on you.

Put more simply, they acknowledged the importance of maintaining the family unit as long as there is no burden on the state.

So I'm not sure what your objection to the Chen case is? If its not that you don't like people of "foreign" ethnicity being allowed to stay here at their own cost, then I would suggest that the Chen ruling doesn't really support any argument for your choice of vote.

Regarding the claim about "spongers", what I say is that since the changes to the social-welfare rules i.e. introduction of the 2 year waiting time for non-nationals to get social-welfare, and the citizenship referendum, there seems to have been a hefty fall in the number of asylum-claimants. Why do you think that is? The terms "cause and affect" spring to mind.

I'd say the term "confusing correlation and causation" springs to my mind reading that line of reasoning.

I have nothing against blacks but

That beginning never bodes well.....

logic dictates that most of them in Ireland were not born here.

No, it doesn't. Logic dictates that most of them have at least one ancestor who wasn't born here.

Hence, when people see them, the thought "probably an asylum-seeker" inevitable comes to mind.

Which would be both illogical and bigoted, even were your logic about them most-likely not having been born here true. There are numerous of other ways in which those people could have legitimately come here. They could be...gosh...British, or French, or some other EU nation. They could be from any number of countries as fully legal immigrants. They could be the husbands or wives of Irish citizens.

Ireland was simply bringing its citizenship-laws into line with the rest of the EU and indeed, the rest of Europe. If we are wrong to have this law, then so too are the other 40 or so countries of Europe and 24 of the EU. Are you accusing them of racism?

I don't know...I haven't heard their logic for why they have such laws. Not all of the logic presented for why people should vote to "bring us into line" was racist either. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any racist arguments, nor that there aren't racists who support such laws.

Again...it would be the distinction between correlation and causality here that you seem to be missing.

jc

Roisin Dubh

bonkey wrote:

And what, say, of a child born outside Ireland to parents who are also not born in Ireland, but where one grandparent was.


Yes - the Chen ruling which basically said that if you can prove that you will be no burden on the State, then the State shouldn't deny your right to remain despite your not being a dependant of a person with the right to remain, but rather where the person with the right to remain is dependant on you.

Put more simply, they acknowledged the importance of maintaining the family unit as long as there is no burden on the state.

So I'm not sure what your objection to the Chen case is? If its not that you don't like people of "foreign" ethnicity being allowed to stay here at their own cost, then I would suggest that the Chen ruling doesn't really support any argument for your choice of vote.


I'd say the term "confusing correlation and causation" springs to my mind reading that line of reasoning.


That beginning never bodes well.....


No, it doesn't. Logic dictates that most of them have at least one ancestor who wasn't born here.


Which would be both illogical and bigoted, even were your logic about them most-likely not having been born here true. There are numerous of other ways in which those people could have legitimately come here. They could be...gosh...British, or French, or some other EU nation. They could be from any number of countries as fully legal immigrants. They could be the husbands or wives of Irish citizens.



I don't know...I haven't heard their logic for why they have such laws. Not all of the logic presented for why people should vote to "bring us into line" was racist either. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any racist arguments, nor that there aren't racists who support such laws.

Again...it would be the distinction between correlation and causality here that you seem to be missing.

jc

Well, even if they can support themselves, I still feel that it still subverted our sovereignty because it took a lot of control away from us over deciding who gets residency/citizenship and who doesn't. In turn, it took control completely out of the hands of foreign EU states into whom Ireland could have been used (and was in the Chen case) to get citizenship/residency there. I don't think it would have been right for our hospital beds to be wasted on such a cynical enterprise.

And anyway, suppose when these women came here that they were able to support themselves. That situation might eventually change, yet the residency/citizenship probably could not have been revoked. Better to err on the side of caution methinks.

It could also be argued that the Chen system was elitist because it possible treated the rich better than the poor, smacking a little of the discredited "passports for sale".

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Well, even if they can support themselves, I still feel that it still subverted our sovereignty because it took a lot of control away from us over deciding who gets residency/citizenship and who doesn't.
...
In turn, it took control completely out of the hands of foreign EU states into whom Ireland could have been used (and was in the Chen case) to get citizenship/residency there.

Look...I just explained what the basic outcome of the Chen case was, and it is no means what you are portraying. It covers a very small, very specific set of circumstances. It also has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship rights in any nation in the EU.

As a matter of interest...do you think it would be correlation or causation that it is those who support your point of view who repeatedly seem to blur such distinctions? First it was "foreign born" and "asylum seeker" that you interchanged, now its "right to reside as long as you are not a burden on the state" and "residence/citizenship which probably can't be revoked". I mean...seriously....if you can't be accurate in those terms, surely you must acknowledge that you are simply not accureately informed on the particular issues?

If you are accurately informed, and are aware of the distinctions, but are deliberately blurring the lines, then I would suggest that such duplicity immediately negates your entire argument.

[

And anyway, suppose when these women came here that they were able to support themselves. That situation might eventually change, yet the residency/citizenship probably could not have been revoked.

Yes it could. You should refamiliarise yourself with the Chen ruling.

Better to err on the side of caution methinks.

Thats not caution. Thats either a lack of proper knowledge leading to a false assumption, or deliberate misinformation.

It could also be argued that the Chen system was elitist because it possible treated the rich better than the poor,

It could well be. All protectionist measures are elitist in some form or another. They are designed to ensure that the rich nations do not get swamped by poor people to one extent or another.

The issue is where we should draw the line. The humanitarian approach would be to give as much as can be reasonably given, without suffering undue hardship and without removing one's own ability to render further aid in the future.

Your approach would, however, appear to be to say "keep them out, because they might undermine our sovereignty". Given that those you would keep out are all of those who are encompassed by the Chen agreement, and myriads more who aren't, its a bit rich for you to be calling the Chen agreement elitist when your chosen solution is even moreso. It certainly doesn't help your case.

smacking a little of the discredited "passports for sale".

How? Chen did not discuss citizenship, it discussed the right to residency.

Again, you're blurring the distinction between residency and citizenship, or else you're not familiar with what the Chen ruling actually was.

In either case, I think you're providing a prime example of what shoegirl was discussing in their last post.

jc

GuanYin

Ok, I'm gonna come out here and ask Roisín a question.

If you have a non-caucasian person born in Ireland do you believe that they are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship full stop or are there some exceptions inyour eyes


If so, can you provide reasoning for this that is true in every case or are you just taking worst case scenarios and tarring eveyone with them.

Roisin Dubh

psi wrote:

Ok, I'm gonna come out here and ask Roisín a question.

If you have a non-caucasian person born in Ireland do you believe that they are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship full stop or are there some exceptions inyour eyes


If so, can you provide reasoning for this that is true in every case or are you just taking worst case scenarios and tarring eveyone with them.

If the parent of the non-caucasian person was born on this island then yes, they are entitled to Irish citizenship full-stop. I would apply the same rule to caucasian persons.

Note that this differs from the previous position where the child would get citizenship regardless.

Originally posted by Bonkey
And what, say, of a child born outside Ireland to parents who are also not born in Ireland, but where one grandparent was.

That rule certainly needs to be examined. It should probably be changed.

Look...I just explained what the basic outcome of the Chen case was, and it is no means what you are portraying. It covers a very small, very specific set of circumstances. It also has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship rights in any nation in the EU.

As a matter of interest...do you think it would be correlation or causation that it is those who support your point of view who repeatedly seem to blur such distinctions? First it was "foreign born" and "asylum seeker" that you interchanged, now its "right to reside as long as you are not a burden on the state" and "residence/citizenship which probably can't be revoked". I mean...seriously....if you can't be accurate in those terms, surely you must acknowledge that you are simply not accureately informed on the particular issues?

If you are accurately informed, and are aware of the distinctions, but are deliberately blurring the lines, then I would suggest that such duplicity immediately negates your entire argument.

OK it had nothing to do with the parent getting citizenship automatically. I had everything to do with residency though and that still allowed rich people to get automatic EU-residency by the back door. If we left the citizenship-law alone, other rich people might have followed Chen's example, potentially including rich mafia bosses. You know how criminals like to exploit loopholes. Of course, this is speculative, but then so are the Book of Estimates the Government comes out with every year before the budget. Are you saying that should be ended because it is "speculative"? We are entitled to take account of potential problems that could be caused by legal rulings and loopholes, regardless of how large or small the abuse of the loophole is. Another example of a legal loophole is the Cinderella rule whereby some Irish members of the superich get away with paying NO tax by leaving the country then entering it again and other schemes. Irrespective of how many people are at it, it still is wrong. The same principle is one I apply to the citizenship loophole of people (regardless of their wealth) using Irish citizenship law back then to claim residency for themselves simply by turning up pregnant.

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

If the parent of the non-caucasian person was born on this island then yes, they are entitled to Irish citizenship full-stop. I would apply the same rule to caucasian persons.

Note that this differs from the previous position where the child would get citizenship regardless.

Ok, I have Irish citizenship. I've lived here the majority of my life.

I work in a government funded profession thats serves the public, is totally understaffed because of lack of investment. I pay taxes and have no criminal record.

When I leave they will either have to spend 5 years training someone to replace me or import someone in on twice my salary. I don't feel too hard done by with this as I did get a free education here. I have a 5 figure sum invested in Irish financial institutes.

I speak fluent Irish, participate in and am a member of CnG and have a pretty neutral but discernable Irish accent.

Now, my question is. Given all the above. What does it matter in terms of my contribution to Irish society, if my parents were born in Ireland or not?

How exactly does it affect you, the system or Irish culture?

Roisin Dubh

psi wrote:

Ok, I have Irish citizenship. I've lived here the majority of my life.

I work in a government funded profession thats serves the public, is totally understaffed because of lack of investment. I pay taxes and have no criminal record.

When I leave they will either have to spend 5 years training someone to replace me or import someone in on twice my salary. I don't feel too hard done by with this as I did get a free education here. I have a 5 figure sum invested in Irish financial institutes.

I speak fluent Irish, participate in and am a member of CnG and have a pretty neutral but discernable Irish accent.

Now, my question is. Given all the above. What does it matter in terms of my contribution to Irish society, if my parents were born in Ireland or not?

How exactly does it affect you, the system or Irish culture?

It doesn't because you already have Irish citizenship. Hence you are unaffected by the referendum.

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

It doesn't because you already have Irish citizenship. Hence you are unaffected by the referendum.

You're either being obtuse or not understanding the question.

If the current laws were in force when I was born, I might not have citizenship depending my parents status. But the point is all the law would have just prevented a state asset working and living here. Which the current law is doing now.

Roisin Dubh

psi wrote:

You're either being obtuse or not understanding the question.

If the current laws were in force when I was born, I might not have citizenship depending my parents status. But the point is all the law would have just prevented a state asset working and living here. Which the current law is doing now.

Not necessarily. If you or your parent were here on a work-permit you could be living in Ireland without having citizenship ie you could have residency, assuming the work-permit were renewed. You dont need citizenship to do that. We may need foreign workers one year but not another, and the Government should let people in/send people home depending on the scale of labour-shortages.

As Michael Martin has said recently on the radio, most of our labour-needs for non-Irish labour can be satisfied from the new EU member states. When they come to Ireland, they are not automatically given Irish citizenship. In a way they don't need it, because they are EU citizens and have substantially the same rights, other than voting in General Elections. If your parent came from one of those countries, you would have no difficulty in staying in Ireland.

With enlargement the need for non-EU nationals naturally declines, since at least 50% of the work-permits went to persons from the new EU member states prior to enlargement. Can you see this?

Why do you think that Irish citizenship is necessary for foreigners working in Ireland?

Or are you asking me to gaze into my crystal ball and judge which babies will become doctors in the future if their parents are allowed to stay, and then award citizenship on that basis? I'm afraid I don't have Mystic Meg style powers but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I voted Yes like 80% of those voting. Even if you take the view that this is only 80% of a 60% turnout, ie 48%, that is still a hell of a lot more than the 9.5% of the No side.

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Not necessarily. If you or your parent were here on a work-permit you could be living in Ireland without having citizenship ie you could have residency, assuming the work-permit were renewed. You dont need citizenship to do that. We may need foreign workers one year but not another, and the Government should let people in/send people home depending on the scale of labour-shortages.

You're ignoring the rather simple question I'm asking you.
What evidence do you have that I'm the exception to the norm. Why is it easier to believe that than that the troublemakers are the exception?

If people are born here and the family can support them, why can't they have citizenship.

As regards work permits, its not the point. I got citizenship but I may not have if I was born today.