The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

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?

Is that Arcadegame asking someone else for a source?

My god, that just makes me laugh.

Incidently, seeing as its his second time circumventing a politics ban with another account, shouldn't he be banned?

bonkey

psi wrote:

Is that Arcadegame asking someone else for a source?

I'm leaving that for the mods to decide.
Roisin Dubh says no, and I ain't gonna say (s)he is a liar.

I was asked for a source, I supplied a source.

Personally, I don't care who the real person behind the keyboard is. I think my side of the argument holds up to closer scrutiny thanks to having been asked for and having supplied the linkage, and thats a good enough reason for me to do it....

jc

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

I'm leaving that for the mods to decide.
Roisin Dubh says no, and I ain't gonna say (s)he is a liar.

I was asked for a source, I supplied a source.

Personally, I don't care who the real person behind the keyboard is. I think my side of the argument holds up to closer scrutiny thanks to having been asked for and having supplied the linkage, and thats a good enough reason for me to do it....

jc

I wasn't aiming anything at you. Its a rather fine source, if I may say, which compliments your very articulate and strong argument.

I'm sure little things like facts, reliable sources, logic and a well presented argument won't get in the way of RoisinGame2004's propaganda obsession.

Roisin Dubh

bonkey wrote:

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?

I think the Citizenship referendum gives a strong indication that the Irish people did not expect the citizenship rules to be used by asylum-seekers to try to get residency. Until 2003 it was standard practice to give the parents citizenship along with the baby and I recall very clearly that Labour wanted the parents to continue getting citizenship. We certainly did not (well most of us anyway) expect the GFA to be used in this way. It was intended to protect Nationalists rights to citizenship, not asylum-seekers or their babies. Why do you think 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age were pregnant when they applied for asylum in 2003? And that happened AFTER the Supreme Court ruling in January removing automatic rights for the parent to get citizenship. As I recall, the 2003 Supreme Court ruling was that the parents don't AUTOMATICALLY get citizenship, not that they never get it partly on the basis of having a baby born in Ireland. Had the referendum not been held, a future Rainbow govt. might have tried to change this situation, by passing a law giving citizenship automatically to the parents. The Supreme Court ruling was that the Constitution did not require that the parents also get citizenship, but of course, that is not the same as saying it forbids a law being passed to confer it on them. Hopefully the referendum will act as a warning to labour not to try to turn back the clock.

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?

The No side were not above misinformation themselves, e.g. saying that the Citizenship amendment might break International Law, even though denying automatic citizenship to the babies of asylum-seekers is also part of the law in every other country in Europe, hence accusing the whole of Europe of breaking the rules. :rolleyes:

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

I support the GFA and voted Yes in 1998. However, we were not changing the GFA. Articles 2 and 3 remained unchanged. We were changing the way Articles 2 and 3 would be interpreted. In this regard, it should be remembered tha the articles do not mention once the word "citizenship" but instead refer to having the right "to be part of the Irish nation". Hence, we were not breaking the agreement, which I support. We were just making it clear that no part of the Irish Constitution should be interpreted as giving Irish citizenship to the babies of those with no parent born on this island. Nigerian President Obasanjo told Bertie Ahern that people from Nigeria were abusing the citizenship laws by turning up pregnant. He would know I'm sure.

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.

You seem to be acting as an apologist for those who claim asylum in multiple countries. I am not in sympathy with people doing this. They shouldn't be doing this. Thay can hardly be a refugee from France or the UK! Ireland's long drawn-out asylum sppeals procedures probably gives them more time to stay in Ireland small wonder some come here but it should not be encouraged. To encourage and reward it would be unfair to those who paid for their work-permit and went through the legal channels to get here.

gandalf

I am sure I have read all this before from "someone" else.

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I think the Citizenship referendum gives a strong indication that the Irish people did not expect

So its not what they say...its what they think they meant to say thats important....like I just said

The No side were not above misinformation themselves,

I never suggested otherwise. I agree fully. There were people on both sides making rational, well-considered arguments, and idiots going off making up half-cocked fantasies which they tried to sell as fact, as well as everything in between and more besides.

But by ensuring we acknowledge both sides misinformation, you're only adding to the numbers of people who were led to believe they were answering a question other then the one they were asked.

And you just pointed out that there was a justification to reconsider the changes of the GFA because the reality turned out different to the perception.

So you would seem to be saying that the public will have solid grounds to demand and be given a new referendum if and when they decide that the citizenship referendum past was not what they thought it was about, and that they'd like to reconsider.

And, given that I assume you don't condone the deliberate use of misinformation, I can only conclude that you would support any attempt to convince the public that they had indeed made a decision base significantly on misinformation, and that they should have the opportunity as soon as possible to reconsider their decision.

No?

Articles 2 and 3 remained unchanged. We were changing the way Articles 2 and 3 would be interpreted.

Semantic difference. Change the effect without changing the wording. Would a consitutional amendment saying "Articles 2 and 3 no longer apply to people born outside the 26 counties" also have been ok in terms of the GFA, by the way? Because your presented logic says that it would unquestionably would have been.

In this regard, it should be remembered tha the articles do not mention once the word "citizenship" but instead refer to having the right "to be part of the Irish nation".

Which begs the question as to why a constitutional amendment was required to prevent citizenship being conferred on some people, given that the constitution never actually guaranteed it to them.

We were just making it clear that no part of the Irish Constitution should be interpreted as giving Irish citizenship to the babies of those with no parent born on this island.

You just said that it didn't say so in the first place. So I can only conclude that either you're misinformed (which makes the rest of your explanation/argument even more suspect), or that our nation has been conned into voting something which wasn't required for what we believed it was, which means that again we should be seeking to have it reconsidered as soon as possible with the correct information as to what it really means.....

Y'know...like you said was the right thing to do with the GFA.

Nigerian President Obasanjo told Bertie Ahern that people from Nigeria were abusing the citizenship laws by turning up pregnant. He would know I'm sure.

As I pointed out ot you (or someone else) in the past couple of days...you're restating the problem as your justification for a particular solution. If you believe that logic is valid, then consider that it could be used to justify any action.

jc

MadsL

Why do you think 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age were pregnant when they applied for asylum in 2003?

Not this again. Now we really know who we are dealing with.

We were just making it clear that no part of the Irish Constitution should be interpreted as giving Irish citizenship to the babies of those with no parent born on this island.

Errr....explain the part about Irish grannies to me again then, please. American, no parent born on this island, grandchild gets a passport?

The_Conductor

gandalf wrote:

I am sure I have read all this before from "someone" else.

Ahh yes, what ever did happen to Boards most loathed member?
I think the Rep counter timed out backwards on him......
If it wasn't this thread it was the Decentralisation thread......
Hmmmmm......

Ten

You are being oppressed by the Politics mods. Enough of this unsubstantiated bullsh!t. - Gandalf

Ten

THis is nothing but a heavily censored open border advocacy board. If you don't tow the Party line...........................to the gulags with u :eek:

MrPudding

Ten wrote:

You also have the added pleasure of knowing that when you walk down the street the majority of Irish don’t (yet) realise what’s really happening.

But luckily for us we have you and your friends at Stormfront to warn us.

I don't suppose there is any chance you could provide any links to backup your claims?

I am particulary interested in more information about the supply of cars and the government "encouraging" employers to employ refugees.

MrP

gandalf

Thread closed.

People are going around in circles at this stage. We have one user who has been banned once and soon to be rebanned (unless they give me a reason not to) posting more of the same.

This topic has gone past its sell by date.