The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

MadsL

send people home

You see here is the fundamental misconception that you have Roisin - for me, and for many immigrants, this IS my home. I have family here (Irish born daughter) and whilst I have lived in other countries, because of these family connections (and other reasons) I consider this my home.
You seem to have a rather outdated world view that makes the country you were born in somehow "home".

Now would you like to explain to my daughter (her mother and I are separated) why I can't stay and be with her because the Govt. has decided that I am somehow surplus to requirements? *

*(which they won't in the real world because there is no statistical evidence to say that I am surplus labour - except in your head)

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

You see here is the fundamental misconception that you have Roisin - for me, and for many immigrants, this IS my home. I have family here (Irish born daughter) and whilst I have lived in other countries, because of these family connections (and other reasons) I consider this my home.
You seem to have a rather outdated world view that makes the country you were born in somehow "home".

Now would you like to explain to my daughter (her mother and I are separated) why I can't stay and be with her because the Govt. has decided that I am somehow surplus to requirements? *

*(which they won't in the real world because there is no statistical evidence to say that I am surplus labour - except in your head)

Excuse me? What part of "my rules do not apply to First World EU migrants" did you miss? For that is my position, and I have repeated umpteen times that my restrictions are intended for those from the developing world.

I reply like that because you seem to be bringing up the debate on the other thread where I proposed removing from the State foreign labour that was surplus to the requirements of filling vacancies caused by labour-shortages. I request the moderators to instruct MadsL to stick to the question of the Citizenship referendum/amendment instead of wandering off in all directions. Surely the other thread on migrant labour is the best place to bring that up.

I don't really see how what you are saying in that posting MadsL relates to the Citizenship referendum/amendment.

psi wrote:

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.

The question isn't just why can't they have citizenship. They MIGHT get it by applying for it. It's just that under the referendum outcome and amendment to the Irish Constitution, they don't AUTOMATICALLY get it.

I don't see why there should be automaticity with respect to getting citizenship by being born here. You see, the problem is that the old system allowed ALL persons from outside Ireland to fly in, give birth, and fly out with Irish citizenship for their babies. Something about that doesn't seem right to me because I feel it devalues citizenship. It just makes gaining it too easy.

I accept what you are sayinf (unless I am mixing you up with another poster) about being the child of non-Irish persons. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that you would have been deported and Ireland would have thus been deprived of your skills. Why? Because if one of your parents was an EU citizen, then so are you and EU citizens automatically have residency rights in Ireland. In fact, EU citizenship IS Irish citizenship, to most intents and purposes, the sole difference being the 2 year (under the Habitual residency rule) wait for social-welfare, and the denial of the right to vote in General Elections/ But If your parent had been an EU citizen and was working here, I see no reason why the Citizenship amendment would change that.

If, on the other hand, both your parents were non-EU citizens, then perhaps you would have been sent home with your parent(s). But hard-cases make bad law. It is difficult to legislate for every conceivable outcome.

Besides, I think a few hours stay in Dublin to give birth hardly constitutes evidence on its own that a future benefit will accrue to the Irish economy/health-service etc. from letting the parent and child stay AND giving them Irish citizenship. We don't have a crystal ball to allow us to know these things.

Giving someone Irish citizenship is a very serious matter. Such persons elect the Irish Government and Dail Eireann. I consider this the birthright of all Irish persons, and I define Irishness according to parentage. If others want this right too, I feel they should have to earn it.

ecksor

A little voice in my head is saying "arcade ... arcade ... go away arcade ..."

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I don't see why there should be automaticity with respect to getting citizenship by being born here. You see, the problem is that the old system allowed ALL persons from outside Ireland to fly in, give birth, and fly out with Irish citizenship for their babies. Something about that doesn't seem right to me because I feel it devalues citizenship. It just makes gaining it too easy. .

There is no evidence whatsoever that this was happening.

Can you provide me with statistics and sources to suggest it was or are you just sprouting forth white nationalist propaganda?

MadsL

Excuse me? What part of "my rules do not apply to First World EU migrants" did you miss? For that is my position, and I have repeated umpteen times that my restrictions are intended for those from the developing world.

And when did I tell you I was an EU citizen? I might have mentioned it to a bloke named AG2003 notably now absent from this discussion. What part of the scenario I present does not relate equally to someone from a developing country?

First World EU? What does that mean? EU? Or First World? In other words do you propose a standard for immigration/citizenship based on the GDP of nationality?

I reply like that because you seem to be bringing up the debate on the other thread where I proposed removing from the State foreign labour that was surplus to the requirements of filling vacancies caused by labour-shortages

And I reply like that because you brought up the concept of "home", the standard knee-jerk reaction to immigrants if they complain about circumstances - "why don't you just go home" or "send them back where they came from" attitude.

I request the moderators to instruct MadsL to stick to the question of the Citizenship referendum/amendment instead of wandering off in all directions. Surely the other thread on migrant labour is the best place to bring that up.

I don't really see how what you are saying in that posting MadsL relates to the Citizenship referendum/amendment.

Bit high and mighty, aren't we? I was responding to you bringing it up in this thread...as quoted below; Still to the topic yourself!

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 for your other points it would seem that you seem to be basing family unity on EU/Non-EU citizenship...so that say a child of say, an African migrant father/Irish mother may find that they are separated from their father down the line as a result of the Govt imposing the type of policy that you advocate. Nice one. Unmarried father's rights are already slim in Ireland, you just added another layer of injustice. Well done.

Giving someone Irish citizenship is a very serious matter. Such persons elect the Irish Government and Dail Eireann. I consider this the birthright of all Irish persons, and I define Irishness according to parentage. If others want this right too, I feel they should have to earn it.

Right. That's why citizenship is currently given to people who can 'dig up' an Irish Granny, who's parents were not born here and have never set foot in the country and not to those who were actually born here if they have the misfortune not to have Irish parents. Makes perfect sense.


And come out of the closet please Arcadegame. This cross-dressing is tiresome.

Time Magazine

MadsL wrote:

First World EU? What does that mean? EU? Or First World? In other words do you propose a standard for immigration/citizenship based on the GDP of nationality?

No you idiot - it depends on whether the country is full of darkies or not as well. If the GDP of the country is within 60-70% of ours then they should come because clearly they'll be better people if they're slightly richer. Sure look at Ireland, we've always been a lovely race and we've always been wealthy. We've never had a famine or a war. People who come from poor countries just have corrupt managers. And with regard First World, they have to come from a certain geographical position on this planet. San Francisco and Seattle is far closer to Ireland than Romania or Nigeria, don't you know.

I'm not a racist but darkies don't belong in this country. We're just not living in a warm enough climate for them. They'd be happier in the lovely country called Africa. I resent multi-culturism and I yearn for a revival of Irish culture! Look at what globalization has done to Ireland for Holy God's sake! Have we all gone mad?! Are there ANY benefits? NOOOO! They're coming here in swarms with their AIDS and their customs and taking over the country! We might as well go back to British rule for Holy God's sake!

And I don't think there should be any constitutional entitlements to citizenship unless you can name the signaturees of the Proclamation can sell and you can your soul to American tourists. I put full faith in the elected representatives of every nation to fully implement a fair citizenship policy. I studied History for my Junior Cert (Ordinary Level, I passed) and there are NO examples of history where governments with power over citizenship abuse it. Well, at least not in the FIRST World. We are the First World. We're number 1. Everyone else can f*ck off.

Now I'm sorry for finally revealing our true feelings on this issue, it's just time we got rid of our political correctness and we were truthful to everyone as single unified group of racists. Sorry, I mean Irishmen.

GuanYin

Angry Banana wrote:

Now I'm sorry for finally revealing our true feelings on this issue, it's just time we got rid of our political correctness and we were truthful to everyone as single unified group of racists. Sorry, I mean Irishmen.

Without doubt, the best politics post in an age

MadsL

Inspired.

Roisin Dubh

psi wrote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that this was happening.

Can you provide me with statistics and sources to suggest it was or are you just sprouting forth white nationalist propaganda?

I said it "allowed" this to happen.

It happened in the Chen case.

Time Magazine

Roisin Dubh wrote:

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

Rosin Dubh wrote:

my rules do not apply to First World EU migrants

--

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I said it "allowed" this to happen.
It happened in the Chen case.

Rosing Dubh wrote:

hard-cases make bad law. It is difficult to legislate for every conceivable outcome.

But a constitutional ammendment is fair game.

Roisin Dubh

But a constitutional ammendment is fair game.

You are quoting me partially and because you do not include my entire sentences, you are taking out of context certain things I was saying.

The Chen case was no hard case. Others likely would have tried to follow her lead, even if, as Bonkey contends, the rules only applied to persons who could support themselves. Had the Irish Constitution remained unchanged, our Government would thus have lost contol over who could and could not come to Ireland to STAY, because although the mother in the Chen case didn't get citizenship, the ECJ did award her EU-residency rights. Hence it could be argued fairly that the ruling included a theoretical right of Chen to reside in Ireland aswell as the rest of the EU. After all, we are all members of the EU.

Now you are free to argue that "well we don't know if others would have followed her lead, because we didn't wait to find out". Personally, I prefer to anticipate possible problems rather than wait for them to happen. For example, you could argue that we shouldn't have road signs - after all such a person might not get into a car accident today. But I prefer to have them just in case. Understand? Heard of the precautionary principle?

Yes, the constitutional amendment was justified. Why? Primarily because the people said it that's why. It's called democracy. Also, because we do not believe that people with no connection to Ireland should hold the power to confer Irish citizenship on another.

Even Bonkey seems to have conceded in the FAS Green Card thread that a country has the right to control immigration into its territory. The problem is that future Chen's might have been able to take similar actions to her, therefore gaining residency for the parent arising from citizenship going to the child. Regardless of the wealth needed to attain this goal, I still feel that retaining the previous constitutional position nonetheless made it harder to control residency rights for immigrants in this country because having a baby would be enough to get to stay here if you are wealthy enough.

My point on Third World immigration was that they have every incentive to come to the First World because we are far wealthier than their countries are.

MadsL

Yes, the constitutional amendment was justified. Why? Primarily because the people said it that's why. It's called democracy. .

Also, because we do not believe that people with no connection to Ireland should hold the power to confer Irish citizenship on another.

Another point of view might say that it was thinly veiled hysterical whipping up of the public based on 'facts' that were unable to be produced and even afterwards showed the way the position was mis-represented.

Sadly that too is democracy.

QUOTE]Also, because we do not believe that people with no connection to Ireland should hold the power to confer Irish citizenship on another.[/QUOTE]
Oddly, people who live outside of Ireland who have never set foot in the country, hold the right to confer citizenship on their children.

Odd. Don'tcha think?

I also wonder how you extrapolate having 'no connection' from people legally resident here. So, no connection there then, other than fupping well living in the country..

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

contends, the rules only applied to persons who could support themselves. Had the Irish Constitution remained unchanged, our Government would thus have lost contol over who could and could not come to Ireland to STAY,

At best, that suggests there was a need for constitutional change, but not that the implemented constitutional change was the correct one to take.

Personally, I prefer to anticipate possible problems rather than wait for them to happen.

Proactivism is not the issue here. The isue is the method of proactivism already taken, and also additional proactivist steps that you are proposing.

For example, you could argue that we shouldn't have road signs - after all such a person might not get into a car accident today. But I prefer to have them just in case. Understand? Heard of the precautionary principle?

Yes, but your solution regarding foreigners and its elitist solution would be more akin to saying that the way to prevent people getting into car accidents, we should stop all men from driving becaust statistically they are the most likely to cause accidents, or all people under the age of 40, or whatever group you decide to attach blame to.

What people are saying is that a more balanced solution (which would be analagous to the implementation of road-signs, traffic lights and speed limits)

Yes, the constitutional amendment was justified. Why? Primarily because the people said it that's why. It's called democracy.

The democratic process makes the amendment legal, not just.

Also, because we do not believe that people with no connection to Ireland should hold the power to confer Irish citizenship on another.

If thats the case, then why wasn't that the prime - or indeed - only reason used to encourage people to vote in favour of amendment?

People voted for a multitude of reasons. I know several people who had serious misgivings about the amendment, but voted in favour of it because they believed it was still an improvement over the then-existing situation.

It is, therefore, incorrect to assume that the passing of the amendment means anything other than that the majority of the voting public supported the amendment. You cannot reliably draw conclusions regarding the stance of that voting public towards any single reason which may have caused them to vote either way.

Even Bonkey seems to have conceded in the FAS Green Card thread that a country has the right to control immigration into its territory.

I don't think there's many posters here who would disagree. Controls must exist. That doesn't make the controls currently in place - nor the ones you would like to see - necessarily just, fair, or what we wish to see.

I still feel that retaining the previous constitutional position nonetheless made it harder to control residency rights for immigrants in this country because having a baby would be enough to get to stay here if you are wealthy enough.

Could you clarify what, exactly, your problem is with allowing self-sufficient people of foreign nationality to reside in this country, allowing their child to grow up as an Irish person?

To clarify - I'm not asking you to pick a specific problem-case. I'd rather you explain why you want to target the non-problem cases as well. Or do you simply see foreigners as a problem, and want them all kept out unless they "marry into the family" of Ireland, so to speak.

Incidentally...why have you no issue with that scenario - foreigners coming here, having a child with an Irish man/woman, and then falling directly into the Chen scenario as you interpret it. It seems strange that you aren't opposed to allowing Irish people engage in sexual activity with foreigners, but have no issue with the masses (I heard the number 200,000,000 once, but I've no idea as to its accuracy) of ppl who have no connection with this island other than that a single grandparent was a citizen of Ireland.

Or are you going to argue that such restrictions would be unreasonable as the reason to (proactively?) correct a potential problem? Surely you wouldn't do so after just arguing that the existence (or potential existence) of a problem is why you feel the current controls are needed?

My point on Third World immigration was that they have every incentive to come to the First World because we are far wealthier than their countries are.

I don't see why this is, in and of itself, a problem. You yourself, in a seperate thread are in favour of allowing them in while we can profit from them, only to kick them out when it becomes financially inconvenient. So clearly their wish to come here isn't the issue. The issue is where to draw the lines regarding where we set our controls.

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I said it "allowed" this to happen.

It happened in the Chen case.

Thats one instance and it had no ill-effect on the Irish state.

Whats your point.

Roisin Dubh

At best, that suggests there was a need for constitutional change, but not that the implemented constitutional change was the correct one to take.

What action would you (if any) have taken to rectify the problem, or do you even consider there having been a problem?

Yes, but your solution regarding foreigners and its elitist solution would be more akin to saying that the way to prevent people getting into car accidents, we should stop all men from driving becaust statistically they are the most likely to cause accidents, or all people under the age of 40, or whatever group you decide to attach blame to.

What people are saying is that a more balanced solution (which would be analagous to the implementation of road-signs, traffic lights and speed limits)

Elitist? Wasn't the Chen ruling elitist? And if it was, then weren't the previous constitutional provisions elitist by giving rise to it?

My criterion for judging whether non-EU nationals can come here or not is simply to test if their skills are needed in the economy due to a lack of Irish labour possessing those skills. If that makes me selfish, then so be it. I will put the interests of my country before the interests of others. We elect our government to take care of our problems, not to create new ones like cheap-labour competing for Irish labour. GAM obviously felt that employing non-Irish persons would be better for 'certain' reasons. Wonder what they were? :rolleyes:

Could you clarify what, exactly, your problem is with allowing self-sufficient people of foreign nationality to reside in this country, allowing their child to grow up as an Irish person?

My problem is that:

A:Well in the Chen case, the woman was self-sufficient because she had a business in the UK. However, suppose the business later went bust. Then she might not be self-sufficient. However, she might still have residency on the basis of the Chen ruling. You might argue that she would no longer qualify on the basis of self-sufficiency, but she might qualify under the "family unity" reference made in the ECJ ruling, i.e. she must be let stay to keep the family together. This is hypothetical, but the lawyers love making money out of the whole immigration thing and if the immigrants affected were not going to come up with such arguments you can bet that a lawyer somewhere would have.

B: It undermined the Irish Government's ability to control immigration and its pull-factors. This matters to me because we are entitled to govern who can and cannot come into our own country. The previous system made that very difficult if a rich woman came in here pregnant. We might not have been able to deport her.

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

What action would you (if any) have taken to rectify the problem, or do you even consider there having been a problem?

As I have oft stated, the first step would have been to actually get our existing rules working in order to accurately assess their strengths and weaknesses, rather than changing to other legislation which would most likely be equally poorly implemented.

Elitist? Wasn't the Chen ruling elitist?

It depends which direction you look at it from.
No workable solution is non-elitist by that measure, and so the term becomes meaningless. The Chen solution is basically a stance that the family unit of an EU citizen is more important than our stance of the right to remain of a relative of an EU citizen, coupled with the simple acknowledgement that we could not afford to allow all dependants of all citizens to enter the EU and be entitled to support.

We have chosen to be as inclusive as we can. Yes, that means some are advantaged over others, but thats going to be true of any solution. The question should be why we would want these people excluded? So we can treat those we can help as badly as those we can't?

And if it was, then weren't the previous constitutional provisions elitist by giving rise to it?

Again, you're either ignoring what the Chen case was about or are misiformed about it.

The Chen case was about the right to remain of a non-dependant, non-EU-national close-family-relation of someone entitled to EU citizenship. It has nothing to do with how that EU citizen got their citizenship.

My criterion for judging whether non-EU nationals can come here or not is simply to test if their skills are needed in the economy due to a lack of Irish labour possessing those skills.

I see.

And tell me.....if I marry my Swiss girlfriend...would she be welcome back to Ireland if and when I return home, regardless of her skill-set? What if we don't get married? What if we don't get married, and we have a child? SHoudl that child be entitled to stay? And if I then die? Should my Swiss girlfriend be allowed stay with her Irish child? If you answer yes, would things change if I said she wasn't Swiss, but rather a Sri Lankan who got asylum over here?

What if I stay here and we have a child in Switzerland, who grows up and marris (say) a Tamil, and they go off to grow up in Sri Lanka, and have a child. Will that person be welcome regardless of his or her skill-set and the Irish economy?

If that makes me selfish, then so be it.

I would be inclined to say that yes, it does.

I will put the interests of my country before the interests of others.

Except that you haven't even shown that its the interests of your country that your putting first. Yet again, you're arguing the need for change as the reason why these particular solutions are correct.

We elect our government to take care of our problems, not to create new ones like cheap-labour competing for Irish labour.

You're not actually listening to what people are saying, are you? You're repeating yourself as an answer to the questions posed from the first time you made these points.

A:Well in the Chen case, the woman was self-sufficient because she had a business in the UK.

Incorrect. She was deemed self-sufficient because she was able to show that her family had guaranteed access to sufficient

owever, suppose the business later went bust. Then she might not be self-sufficient. However, she might still have residency on the basis of the Chen ruling.

Now I'm sure you aren't listening. I've clarified repeatedly that the Chen case grants the right to remain as long as she is self-sufficient. I can't believe that you don't understand what as long as means, but unless that the case, then you're simply continuing to ignore that I'm saying it time and time again.

You might argue that she would no longer qualify on the basis of self-sufficiency, but she might qualify under the "family unity" reference made in the ECJ ruling,

No, she couldn't. There is no question about this. It is not unclear, uncertain, or open to interpretation in any way. If you think it is, then please - by all means - quote up the relevant section and explain how it could be taken from it. Oh, and given that you've just criticised another poster for taking one of your quotes out of its full context, I'm sure you'll be careful not to fall into the same trap.

This is hypothetical

More accurately "complete speculation which involves deliberately misinterpreting what was actually said in favour of making assumptions about what might be said in the future".

Indeed, its not too far from a slippery slope fallacy. Not far at all.

B: It undermined the Irish Government's ability to control immigration and its pull-factors.

Incorrect. The government's inability to properly implement the existent system is what undermined their ability to control immigration. Having a whole new system that we fail to implement properly is unlikely to significantly alter the situation.

This matters to me because we are entitled to govern who can and cannot come into our own country.

And yet again you fail to explain why your solution is the right one, instead favouring a repetition of the problem.

One last thing..if all you're going to do is ignore the awkward questions in this post, and re-state your position as a response to the questions about that position....spare yourself, me and anyone reading this the effort. I've heard your case. I've asked you questions about it, not asked for a repitition.

jc

Roisin Dubh

bonkey wrote:

As I have oft stated, the first step would have been to actually get our existing rules working in order to accurately assess their strengths and weaknesses, rather than changing to other legislation which would most likely be equally poorly implemented.


It depends which direction you look at it from.
No workable solution is non-elitist by that measure, and so the term becomes meaningless. The Chen solution is basically a stance that the family unit of an EU citizen is more important than our stance of the right to remain of a relative of an EU citizen, coupled with the simple acknowledgement that we could not afford to allow all dependants of all citizens to enter the EU and be entitled to support.

We have chosen to be as inclusive as we can. Yes, that means some are advantaged over others, but thats going to be true of any solution. The question should be why we would want these people excluded? So we can treat those we can help as badly as those we can't?[/I]

Firstly, the Irish people do not have to explain anything to people from other countries as to the reasoning of our decisions provided we are not breaking international human rights law. If deciding whether persons can come here or not, the interests of Irish people should come first. Now you might argue, as you seem to be doing, that no harm would come from letting more in, especially if they are economically self-sufficient. However, a future government might take a different view, e.g. concern at a perceived undermining of national identity. As such, future governments should not be bound by the immigration-policy implied by the previous constitutional position - an immigration policy in which coming to Ireland pregnant and giving birth here confers EU residency on the mother.

Again, you're either ignoring what the Chen case was about or are misiformed about it.

The Chen case was about the right to remain of a non-dependant, non-EU-national close-family-relation of someone entitled to EU citizenship. It has nothing to do with how that EU citizen got their citizenship.

No, she couldn't. There is no question about this. It is not unclear, uncertain, or open to interpretation in any way. If you think it is, then please - by all means - quote up the relevant section and explain how it could be taken from it. Oh, and given that you've just criticised another poster for taking one of your quotes out of its full context, I'm sure you'll be careful not to fall into the same trap.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0518/6news/6news56_2a.smil
I strongly urge you to listen to this RTE report linked to here that came up during the Citizenship referendum campaign last year on the Chen ruling. A number of grounds were mentioned to justify the ruling by the Advocate-General, and if you listen to the whole report, you will know that the Advoate-General said that "the interest of family unity" - The EXACT WORDS he used - WAS one of those. The Court never said that if the mother did not have health-insurance etc. that her challenge would have failed. You should understand Bonkey that sometimes court cases go a particular way for more than one reason. But that doesn't always mean that the absence of one of those reasons e.g. the health-insurance issue, would have caused the ruling to go a differernt way. It is POSSIBLE that even if this woman was a burden on the state, that she would still have won on the basis of "the interest of family unity".

And tell me.....if I marry my Swiss girlfriend...would she be welcome back to Ireland if and when I return home, regardless of her skill-set? What if we don't get married? What if we don't get married, and we have a child? SHoudl that child be entitled to stay? And if I then die? Should my Swiss girlfriend be allowed stay with her Irish child?

Yes because Switzerland is an EEA member and such countries have the same rights of free movement as EU member states. And it is much richer than Ireland. Hence, I don't fear a flood will come to Ireland.

If you answer yes, would things change if I said she wasn't Swiss, but rather a Sri Lankan who got asylum over here?

Look at the map. So far away from Ireland, that it is almost impossible that Ireland was the first EU country they entered. She should have applied for asylum in the first EU country she entered. She shouldn't even have got asylum in Ireland. If she had it, then I can only put it down to ministerial discretion of a kind I certainly do not support. But the law being as it is, if she has already attained Irish citizenship, then there's nothing that could be done about deporting this adult, as this might open a pandoras box that might allow deportation of Irish-born Irish citizens who have Irish parents, possibly necessitating another referendum. To avoid this, it is better to deport them to a previous EU country of entry.

What if I stay here and we have a child in Switzerland, who grows up and marris (say) a Tamil, and they go off to grow up in Sri Lanka, and have a child. Will that person be welcome regardless of his or her skill-set and the Irish economy?

If the child has a Swiss parent, then more than likely the child has Swiss citizenship. That in turn would allow him/her EU residency rights. So he/she would be able to do that anyway. So the answer is yes. I am conscious of the EU treaties were are signaturies to. Hence my constant reference to EU rules. These rules allow us to impose restrictions on immigration from the 10 new EU member states however, and that MAY be necessary in future.

Except that you haven't even shown that its the interests of your country that your putting first. Yet again, you're arguing the need for change as the reason why these particular solutions are correct.

I cannot prove what will happen in the future. But it follows that given that the reasoning used by the Govt for issuing work-permits is to fill vacancies caused by labour-shortages, that should labour-shortages ease/go away, then the needs to keep bringing more in dissipates, or that some persons may no longer be needed and the option should be there in that event to remove them from this country.

Incorrect. The government's inability to properly implement the existent system is what undermined their ability to control immigration. Having a whole new system that we fail to implement properly is unlikely to significantly alter the situation.

I agree that immigration controls have not been adequately enforced. However, the positioning of personnel at Calais and other foreign EU ports and along the border of the 6 county statelet helps. The Government inherited a pathetically underfunded and undermanned system from the Rainbow Govt.

But removing some of the pull-factors that encoouraged people to come here e.g. citizenship for babies, has the potential to be more successful at deterring illegal immigration than enforcement problems being resolved.

MadsL

Just time for a quick point.

Look at the map. So far away from Ireland, that it is almost impossible that Ireland was the first EU country they entered. She should have applied for asylum in the first EU country she entered. She shouldn't even have got asylum in Ireland.

I've looked at the map. Now you read the law. Can we put this 'first EU country entered' nonsense to bed once and for all, I have refuted this endlessly. Could you people actually read what the law says in this regard.

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Just time for a quick point.


I've looked at the map. Now you read the law. Can we put this 'first EU country entered' nonsense to bed once and for all, I have refuted this endlessly. Could you people actually read what the law says in this regard.

The Dublin II Convention allows us to send someone back to the previous EU country of entry and those negotiating it wouldn't have put that in there if they didn't feel that multiple asylum-claims were an abuse of the system. Or what other reason can you see for it being there?

I feel that claiming asylum in more than 1 country in the EU is an abuse of the system. Do you?

sceptre

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The Dublin II Convention

Regulations, not Convention.

I'll give you a lollipop if you get even the name right just once. Once you do that you can work on the difference between being able to send someone back to the country of entry if the government so chooses (an optionally exercisable right) and "shouldn't even have got asylum in Ireland" (a non-optionally non-exercisable compulsory ban) given that this is how you choose to support the earlier statement. You were doing so well to provide reasonable albeit limited support for statistics, facts and personal opinion for a wee while that I'd hate to see you head back to your unsubstantiated scaremongering days as you're wasting disc space if you do.

MadsL

I feel that claiming asylum in more than 1 country in the EU is an abuse of the system. Do you?

Your child is dying, the doctor tells you there is nothing he can do, would you seek a second opinion? Even if it were against the Regulations?

Time Magazine

MadsL wrote:

Your child is dying, the doctor tells you there is nothing he can do, would you seek a second opinion? Even if it were against the Regulations?

I would, but I'd have no problem in them refusing me if

i) I'm not from a first world country
ii) My country's GDP is low
iii) I'd be infringing on the hallowed Irish citizenship


Just on another point, if somebody is of no burden to the State they must therefore be adding to the economy.

Who cares about labour if they're adding to the economy? Do people not realise that labour is not the only factor of production?
I betcha it's the darkies who don't know the economics.

Ancient1

Angry Banana wrote:

No you idiot - it depends on whether the country is full of darkies or not as well. If the GDP of the country is within 60-70% of ours then they should come because clearly they'll be better people if they're slightly richer. Sure look at Ireland, we've always been a lovely race and we've always been wealthy. We've never had a famine or a war. People who come from poor countries just have corrupt managers. And with regard First World, they have to come from a certain geographical position on this planet. San Francisco and Seattle is far closer to Ireland than Romania or Nigeria, don't you know.

I'm not a racist but darkies don't belong in this country. We're just not living in a warm enough climate for them. They'd be happier in the lovely country called Africa. I resent multi-culturism and I yearn for a revival of Irish culture! Look at what globalization has done to Ireland for Holy God's sake! Have we all gone mad?! Are there ANY benefits? NOOOO! They're coming here in swarms with their AIDS and their customs and taking over the country! We might as well go back to British rule for Holy God's sake!

And I don't think there should be any constitutional entitlements to citizenship unless you can name the signaturees of the Proclamation can sell and you can your soul to American tourists. I put full faith in the elected representatives of every nation to fully implement a fair citizenship policy. I studied History for my Junior Cert (Ordinary Level, I passed) and there are NO examples of history where governments with power over citizenship abuse it. Well, at least not in the FIRST World. We are the First World. We're number 1. Everyone else can f*ck off.

Now I'm sorry for finally revealing our true feelings on this issue, it's just time we got rid of our political correctness and we were truthful to everyone as single unified group of racists. Sorry, I mean Irishmen.

I cannot believe what i'm reading here - are you for real?

GuanYin

Ancient1 wrote:

I cannot believe what i'm reading here - are you for real?

I take it sarcasm isn't big around where you live,eh?

Ancient1

It's not always easy to distinguish - especially after reading 20 pages of this.

I'll go have another coffee, just in case

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I strongly urge you to listen to this RTE report linked to here that came up during the Citizenship referendum campaign last year on the Chen ruling.

So I'll take that as a "no" to my request that you explain the issue, as it was laid out in the ruling.

I hate to break this to you, but the actual ruling is the only thing to come from the AG which carries any weight. He could have come out on RTE and said that his findings were entirely different to whatwas in the ruling, and it would have no impact on the ruling.

And, les you not be seeing where this is coming from, let me be more explicit. It would seem to me to be foolhardy in the extreme to even suggest that a broadcast targetted at the public is sufficiently explicit to clarify the legal implications of something as complex as the Chen finding.

A number of grounds were mentioned to justify the ruling by the Advocate-General, and if you listen to the whole report, you will know that the Advoate-General said that "the interest of family unity" - The EXACT WORDS he used - WAS one of those.

You highlighted the wrong words. The important ones are the third last and last. It was one of those....one of many reasons.

And as you so succinctly put it yourself....

sometimes court cases go a particular way for more than one reason. But that doesn't always mean that the absence of one of those reasons e.g. the health-insurance issue, would have caused the ruling to go a differernt way.

What you left out was that it also doesn't mean that the absence of one of those reasons would not have caused it to go a different way either.

In short, you cannot take a decision and decide that it has implications for a different set of circumstances. Indeed, were there a different set of circumstances, then the Chen ruling has no effect whatsoever regardless of whether or not it went the way it did, or in the opposite direction.

It is POSSIBLE that even if this woman was a burden on the state, that she would still have won on the basis of "the interest of family unity".

Yes it is. And the Chen ruling had no impact on that, and has nothing to do with that. It addressed, and limited itself to addressing, a specific set of circumstances. Whenever you have referred to it, you've decided it carries implications for other circumstances. It doesn't. It has nothing to do with the scaremongering cases you give rise to. Nothing.

Yes because Switzerland is an EEA member and such countries have the same rights of free movement as EU member states.

But...its sa situation that takes the control of citizenship out of our governments hands. I thought this was your objection to why our previous rules needed to be changed.

And it is much richer than Ireland. Hence, I don't fear a flood will come to Ireland.

Ahhhl. I see. Abrogation of our control of citrizenship was only a smokescreen. You don't mind who gets the right to stay, as long as they're rich and their surname isn't Chen.

Look at the map. So far away from Ireland, that it is almost impossible that Ireland was the first EU country they entered.

Look where I live When I used the word "here", I meant Switzerland, which has (incidentally) the laregest number of Tamils living outside Sri Lanka in any single country.

So...if my girlfriend is "Swiss" in that she's a Tamil refugee granted asylum here.....does that change things?

And my (mythical) grandchild who will have lived in Sri Lanka, born to a Swiss-born Irish/Tamil and a Tamil.....they will have the right to enter Ireland as an Irish citizen, and their descendants will have the right to be Irish....and you don't have a problem with this???

Its amazing how many situations where we (as a nation) have no control over who gets citizenship that you have no objections to, and yet loss of control over who gets citizenship has been a backbone of your argument.

Well, that and capitalist greed renamed "selfishness".

She should have applied for asylum in the first EU country she entered. She shouldn't even have got asylum in Ireland. If she had it, then I can only put it down to ministerial discretion of a kind I certainly do not support.

This is where I'll suggest you first of all learn the law (as per Sceptres corrections), and secondly look at a map yourself. Ireland is an island. Sri Lanka is an island. Boats travel between.....go on...you can get this one right....

So explain to me how ireland couldn't be the first European port of call for a refugee from Sri Lanka, even if there was any legal system in place which made this an issue???

If the child has a Swiss parent, then more than likely the child has Swiss citizenship. That in turn would allow him/her EU residency rights. So he/she would be able to do that anyway. So the answer is yes. I am conscious of the EU treaties were are signaturies to. Hence my constant reference to EU rules.

I just don't get it...

In case you weren't around, or have forgotten...we had to have a constitutional referendum to allow our government sign such treaties. So we had a constitutional amendment which removed partial control of our citizenship from our government's hands. You accept and respect this, and believe it should be honoured....whilst insisting that another constitutional amendment which removed partial control of our citizenship from our governments hands was fundamnetally wrong because of the control it removed.

Somewhat inconsistent...no? It would seem that the whole "loss of control" line of reasoning is getting smokier and smokier.

These rules allow us to impose restrictions on immigration from the 10 new EU member states however, and that MAY be necessary in future.

Incorrect.

We were given the option to impose resrictions up front, and chose not to. We no longer have the option to impose restrictions without seeking EU approval.

So once again, citizenship control is out of our hands....and in a manner you claim to approve of (although when you realise that your understanding is wrong, and that all those poor people could come here and we can do nothing about it....that might change)

Roisin Dubh

MadsL wrote:

Your child is dying, the doctor tells you there is nothing he can do, would you seek a second opinion? Even if it were against the Regulations?

It is sheer rubbish to pretend that the Irish health-service is better than mainland European ones. Are you making an analogy between claiming asylum in more than one country and seeking health-care? I don't understand fully what you mean. Asylum-seekers are not going to lose their lives by staying in France, Italy, Spain or whatever was the first EU state they entered.

But...its sa situation that takes the control of citizenship out of our governments hands. I thought this was your objection to why our previous rules needed to be changed.

In case you weren't around, or have forgotten...we had to have a constitutional referendum to allow our government sign such treaties. So we had a constitutional amendment which removed partial control of our citizenship from our government's hands. You accept and respect this, and believe it should be honoured....whilst insisting that another constitutional amendment which removed partial control of our citizenship from our governments hands was fundamnetally wrong because of the control it removed.

Somewhat inconsistent...no? It would seem that the whole "loss of control" line of reasoning is getting smokier and smokier.

At least the Irish people got to vote on that. What was happening before was different from what I expected to happen when I voted for the GFA, and I strongly suspect - especially with an almost identical turnout in the two referendums - that this sentiment is shared by most people.

Incorrect.

We were given the option to impose resrictions up front, and chose not to. We no longer have the option to impose restrictions without seeking EU approval.

Are you sure about the latter? I dispute this. My understanding is that we still impose restrictions until 2011. Can you show a source to back up your claim plz?

MadsL

Are you making an analogy between claiming asylum in more than one country and seeking health-care?

Precisely my point. If you put yourself in a desperate situation, like the one I outlined, then I suggest that you would take any means necessary to get the outcome you want - regardless of the 'regulations'. You seem to have a hard time empathising with that.

Asylum-seekers are not going to lose their lives by staying in France, Italy, Spain or whatever was the first EU state they entered.

Assuming that country grants them asylum. The point I am making is that I can understand the drive to gain asylum anywhere, despite the regulations - you also seem to have a hard time identifying with that. That's why I tried to make an analogy with one you might understand.

I suggest you read the Dublin II Regulations carefully and try and understand the realities of the situation that many asylum seeker find themselves in. An understanding of the trends in Asylum Seeker may also help (2004 saw a 19% drop in applications as a whole through the EU25, as a result of a 21% drop in applications in the EU15) *

This, coupled with the overall drop in immigration levels into Ireland anyway, means that any suggestion of the 'flood' is a total myth, and generally used to stir up fear and overreaction. The CR was a classic example of lack of hard data being presented but appeals being made to base instincts like fear or national 'identity'. No wonder it got the result it did.

* source:
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=422439144

bonkey

Are you sure about the latter? I dispute this. My understanding is that we still impose restrictions until 2011. Can you show a source to back up your claim plz?

Most certainly...

If you have a look here
and go down to about halfway through the page, you will see the following:

from link wrote:

Can the existing Member States re-impose restrictions? In other words, is it open to Ireland to decide to cease open access and require work permits again?
If an existing Member State granted full free movement of workers from the new Member States, as is the case in Ireland, it can ask to be authorised to re-impose restrictions if it undergoes serious problems on its labour market or there is a threat of this. The Commission will then decide what sort of restrictions may be imposed.

(emphasis mine)

See? We cannot decide to impose rstrictions. We can ask the European Commission to allow us to impose restrictions. Theey will then tell us whether or not we can do so. If they say we can, they will also tell us what we are allowed to do.

Now...you can believe what you like, but this is how it was designed to work, how it actually works, and why (here's the kicker) it was a big decision at the time. We had one chance to freely make our decision, and we made it.

After that...I believe the term you have used up to now is "out of our government's hands" ??? So...do you now support or oppose the position we took as a nation on the enlargement of the EU?

Only a few posts ago you stressed the importance of abiding by our agreements and so on, so in theory you should support this decision.

On the other hand, you clearly were incorrectly informed (although I would suggest that is no-one's fault but your own), so by your logic in your last post (re: the GFA and why it was okay to decide not to abide by that decision), I guess you'll feel entitled to suggest now that this is not a decision we should be bound by???


Either way, you've kinda shot yourself in the foot.

If you say we should be obliged to abide by it, you're contradicting your position of "it is wrong that we not have control over these things", as you're now supporting a decision which has taken control entirely out of our hands.

If you say we shouldn't feel obliged to abide by it (for whatever reason), you're once again undermining your claim that we should naturally abide by agreements that we've signed.

Not looking good...no matter which stance you take, you're undermining one of your own arguments.

Sounds to me like what you're really hinting at here is that you only really believe in standing by agreements that you don't disagree with at this point in time, but obviously can't say something like that straight up so you've tried to make a silk purse out of this particular sow's ear so to speak.

jc

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

At least the Irish people got to vote on that. What was happening before was different from what I expected to happen when I voted for the GFA,

So what you're saying is that at least the Irish people got to vote on that, unlike the GFA, where they also got to vote?

Or are you now suggesting that the value of democracy is not in what teh majority say, but actually in what they were led to believe they were saying vs. the reality of what they said?

Wouldn't this only be adding weight to the notion that the citizenship referendum was unjust because of the amount of misinformation, FUD, scaremongering, and so forth which led people to believe that they were voting for something other than what was actually on the ballot?

No? How come you earlier were holding the position that the citizenship referendum was just purely because it gained majority support? How come this logic doesn't apply to the GFA referendum as well?

Or is it only the referenda that you disagreed with in hindsight that shouldn't count....because thats what its sounding like.

jc