The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic. I said that those who love running down the country all the time are unpatriotic (if they are Irish).

So you are saying that people who question or complain are unpatriotic? What if the vote had gone the other way? That would of made you unpatriotic. No?

Also quit with the racist crap.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Filipino nurses are legally in this country and were invited by the Government. They therefore do not constitute people who arrived illegally and pregnant to have citizenship-babies for cynical purposes. Please do not mirepresent my position. I have repeatedly made the point that I accept the need for limited migration to fill job vacancies where they arise, while doggedly resisting excessive uncontrolled migration of the kind that would cause a race to the bottom in wages in parts of industry not experiencing labour-shortages (especially after the rise in unemployment to 5.1%).
My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

First of all- Filipino nurses are deserting Ireland in droves, because their partners and families are having difficulty in visiting or residing here- last time I checked we had zero problems with any Filipino people here- they are some of the most hard working and decent people on the face of the planet- so please stop with the cynical attempt to somehow associated them with the so-called "social migrants".

BTW- So what if unemployment is 5.1%? Unemployment is a measure of "people actively seeking work". How many of the 5.1% are not- quite a few I assure you. You also seem to have conveniently glossed over the statistics from the CSO that I posted for you on the Migrant workers thread- which explained the rise to 5.1%, namely those in education going on the dole over the summer months and showing in the statistics in the month of July. Its an annual cycle- it happens every year- and if you would like proof of our actual employment trends- our unemployment figures for July 2004 are a little over 8,000 lower than they are for July 2003- surely a more comparable measure than pulling a figure out of the sky and trying to base it as justification on which to limit migration of those who I hasten to add, are willing to enter the workforce.......

Re: extremist clerics- being a large minority in the Muslim world? Really? I'd never have guessed. Every cleric has his or her followers (along with his or her detractors). There are different branches of the faith- much as there is with Christianity- think of the Coptics, Protestants, Catholics etc...... (think of the Sunni, the Shia etc)
If you know anything of the history between a) christians and muslims (over the last 800 years- think Portugal), b) the British and Palestinians (think of their "procterate"), c) the americans and their bizzare foreign politics...... is it any wonder that a few people feel disenfranchised and in more extreme cases militant? I am not in any manner trying to excuse behaviour of anyone- but I am simply pointing out that your "Mulim clerics are in a large minority" is waffle. By the same brush- Firebrand lutheran preachers proclaiming death to Catholics and the Pope are in a large minority too...... it simply is not the case......

Also your definition of "assimilation" seems to be a wandering roving definition- that changes to suit your mood. Why does, or does not, it include all migrants (or indeed all the indigenous population)? Why is it only the Muslims who have to assimilate? Surely if 400,000 Spanish and Italians, who are largely catholic, not muslim- came over here you would trying to encourage them to assimilate? Once again, its posturing to suit a single statement- not thought out, and quite infuriatingly designed to draw attention and play on people's emotions about Muslims. I hasten to add that I know several Muslims here- they are singularly the most peaceful, law-abiding, nicest group of people that I know of. Their biggest worry, and its a massive one- is meeting someone like you, or influenced by someone like you, in the street. They have to chaperone their children to and from classes on Angier Street- for fear that they may be attacked....... Nnnnnngggggg!!!!!!

Grow up.

The_Conductor

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ok- there are 191 countries represented at the United Nations. There are a number of independent countries who choose not to be represented at the UN (eg. the Vatican).

There are further a number of countries not recognised as independent, regardless of the facts on the ground (eg. Taiwan).

There are also dozens of territories and colonies that are sometimes erroneously called "countries" but don't count at all - they're governed by other countries- who are seperately represented at the olympics etc- think Western Sahara, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc.

A "Country" has -
space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
Has economic activity and an organized economy.
A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
Has a government which provides public services and police power.
Has sovereignty.
No other State should have power over the country's territory.
Has external recognition.
A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
There are currently 193 independent countries or States around the world. Territories of countries or individual parts of a country are not countries in their own right.
Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries

A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of a federal State such as the states of the United States of America.

Nations and Nation-States

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience.

When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."

There are nations without States.
For example, the Kurds are stateless people.


S.

The_Conductor

Tuars wrote:

perceived is the operative word in that sentence. arcadegame2004 has said a lot about this alright and it's been pointed out numerous times that the referendum does not address these perceived abuses.
.

Yes
I was quite deliberate in using the word "perceived".

S.

Imposter

MadsL wrote:

Since you brought it up...It does not say that...but it does say
Principle 6

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

The current situation opens the possibility that the parents of a child born in this country are deported and that the child whilst having a perfect right to remain as a citizen of the Republic may be forcibly removed from the country, subjected to the distress of deportation and possible separation from its mother and is possibly placed back into harms way. This raises the question of whether it is in the child's interest that it remain in the republic.

When you say the current situation do you mean the old constitution and legislation or the one that is yet to be implemented? If you mean the new constitution and legislation then that is wrong as the child is not a citizen (depending on the legislation).

Why is it the states responsibility of whether it is in the childs best interest that they remain or not? Say the child had 2 american parents and the government decided that perhaps Ireland is a better place than America to grow up. Should the child then get citizenship in your view? Imo the parents should be ultimately responsible for the child not the state and if the parents are to be deported then the child should be too. If the child has citizenship of Ireland then it complicates matters and aids the parents with appealing their deportation (largely appealing to the emotions of a judge). The child in most cases also has no real links to Ireland other than being born there.

In the case of children who have no nationality surely the legislation should allow for this. France has quite a good solution to this issue.

dahamsta

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic.

That's exactly what you were trying to say, but you're incapable of supporting it. Which makes you a liar and a weasel.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

"I voted Yes and would still do so. To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to."

arcadegame2004

No dahamasta. I respect the views of those who voted no but gracefully accept the result of the referendum as the democratic expression of the wishes of the people. My remark on the "unpatriotic" tendencies was reserved for those who, instead of accepting the result, expres their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman.

gandalf

Kept clear of this but I have to wade in. Personally I felt that the Yes vote was a violation and corruption of our Constitution. With that view I do not think I am unpatriotic.

Arcade I get the impression from you if the vote had gone the other way you would be one of those that "express their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman".

This thread is covering ground that at this stage has been well trodden in here already. I will review it tomorrow and decide if its worthwhile leaving it open, at the moment I am edging towards a Cesar like "thumbs down".

ionapaul

DadaKopf wrote:

I wasn't in the country to vote but would have voted 'no'. I did everything I could to piece together what happened over there. When I came back, I asked around, asked people who had been here, who had voted about what went wrong.

Without fail, people dodged the question and chaged the subject.

*Shrugs*

I can explain what happened, with some degree of confidence. I have said it before. A number of my friends voted Yes - the usual blather about 'discouraging citizen-tourists...overrun maternity wards...etc...' was spouted when they were asked why they planned to vote us. Many reasons were given.

However, the main reason the Yes side won so convincingly in Ireland was people voted Yes to 'get the Nigs out'. Plain and simple. Not all who voted yes voted because of racist leanings, but I am utterly and completely convinced that many of those who did vote Yes did so because they don't want any more blacks/asians/non-whites in Ireland.

People can quote all the exit-poll numbers and reasons they want...no-one would admit to a stranger their real racist feelings on this matter, so those numbers and reasons are invalid in many respects. I am sorry if this is shocking to people, or if it is unpatriotic (like I care) to run down the country, but a majority of people in Ireland are racists who want to get 'the blacks' out (what with the free cars / houses / shiny gold pennies they get FOR NOTHING!!! from the Irish).

In mitigation, most humans (regardless of ethnicity or culture) are racists, so this result should surprise no-one.

Lennoxschips

I suppose Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were unpatriotic too.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No dahamasta. I respect the views of those who voted no but gracefully accept the result of the referendum as the democratic expression of the wishes of the people. My remark on the "unpatriotic" tendencies was reserved for those who, instead of accepting the result, expres their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman.

He said this a while ago:
"The tactics of the Left in the Citizenship-referendum are being used again, i.e. tarring all who favour restrictions on immigration as the most profoundly evil scum of the earth."

While his tactics are to accuse anyone who voted no as being unpatriotic hatemongers.

He's always criticising the state's immigration policy. Surely that's unpatriotic and expressing vitriol for fellow countrymen eh?

Tuars

ionapaul wrote:

However, the main reason the Yes side won so convincingly in Ireland was people voted Yes to 'get the Nigs out'. Plain and simple. Not all who voted yes voted because of racist leanings, but I am utterly and completely convinced that many of those who did vote Yes did so because they don't want any more blacks/asians/non-whites in Ireland.

I think this is a bit strong. I don't think the motivation is pure racism, I think it's closer to arcadegame2004's motivation i.e. "we don't want foreigners taking our jobs, women, houses etc." . I don't think it's a colour-of-skin issue, it's a colour-of-money one.

Of course, I disagree with both these propostions as a valid reason to vote yes.

omnicorp

The Government, The EU and the "yes" voters are, in my opinion, racist;
If it was a problem with say, french or Australian imigrants we would never have heard of this referendum.

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Filipino nurses are legally in this country and were invited by the Government. They therefore do not constitute people who arrived illegally and pregnant to have citizenship-babies for cynical purposes.

Except under this legislation their children will not now have any automatic right of citizenship despite the very positive contribution their mothers make to the country. It has taken enormous amounts of pressure just to get these workers permanant contracts and permits (instead of short-term rolling contracts and temporary permissions) and to obtain permits for their spouces to remain and work....and they are invited by the Government. Nice welcome to our 'guests'.

What's a citizenship-baby? Does it get born attached to a lawyer??

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I have repeatedly made the point that I accept the need for limited migration to fill job vacancies where they arise.

No, you have repeatedly pointed our that employers should employ (illegally) Irish first, EU second, johnny foriegner last..Ireland for the Irish I think was the phrase you used.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

So perhaps what you meant to say was that ""With 0.5% of the population identifying themselves as "Muslim" on the Census form in 2002, it is clear that the ability of the immigrants to assimilate is open to question." *

In other words this was you attacking a tiny minority (0.5%) in this country for their ability to 'assimilate'...I could attack Irish priests in the same manner;

<sarcasm>Please do not tell me that the child molesting priests I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Catholic world. A minority maybe. But a large one....and whats up with that weird celibacy thing?</sarcasm>
Or homosexuals;
<sarcasm>Please do not tell me that these cross-dressing drag queens I see on the news are a tiny minority in the gay world. A minority maybe. But a large one....</sarcasm>

So do you think it is ok to question someones ability to integrate into society on the basis of a question they answered on the census. That's fúcked up arcade. I insist that you withdraw and apologise for your racist remark.







* link to the data
http://www.cso.ie/census/pdfs/pdr_2002.pdf

omnicorp

Madsl is right

Stabshauptmann

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to.

To say that we broke International law on citizenship by voting yes is to accuse the entire EU of breaching international-law. Take that to the World Court and be laughed out of Court.

The "love it or leave it" arguement is one of the most flawed and ignorant pieces of rehtoric to be used in the US, glad to see it finally made its way here with the rest of their culture. A true patriot would want to do what he can to improce his country, if his country made a mistake he would oppose it for the good of said country. The only way to maintain a healthy democracy is through opposition and constant questioning.

One of the many reasons I wouldnt have supported the referendum was the PD campaign appealing to Patriots to protect the purity of our land [sic].

Nobody said we broke international law, what was said was thank god its not the international law.

omnicorp

You know, Necromancer makes a lot of sense.
He wasn't banned was he?
If so, why?
I don't think he should have been.
He seems to agree with me.
Not a lot of people do.

gandalf

He was banned for personal insults on one of the threads I had to move :rolleyes:

omnicorp

Well I have to congratulate the government on their clever ploy of putting the referendum on the same day as the local elections.

arcadegame2004

a majority of people in Ireland are racists

If that's not running down the country then I don't know what is.


Gandalf in response to what you said about how I might be running down the country if my side had lost the referendum, my reply is that my reaction would have been "I am extremely disappointed, by as a democrat I accept the people's decision". I would not have gone around proclaming "I am ashamed to be Irish etc." from the rooftops. Now many "No" voters similarly have gracefully accepted the referendum-result. My criticism of what I see as unpatriotic remarks is aimed at those of them that make these kind of proclamations.

I suppose Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were unpatriotic too.

No. I have never and would never argue what some in the US media seem to have espoused since Sept.11th i.e. the idea that criticism of the Government of a country by its citizens is unpatriotic. Far from it. These people were true patriots who fought for the rights of their citizens. Nothing to do with immigration so I am uncertain why they are being dragged into this debate.

Tarring 80% of the Irish nation with the racist brush seems very unpatriotic to me though. We are not racists. We just do not see why immigrants living in Western countries far better able to cater for their needs than us (as they have more taxpayers) have to travel to Ireland to escape from supposed dangers.

Well I have to congratulate the government on their clever ploy of putting the referendum on the same day as the local elections.

I cannot understand that argument. I might have before the referendum. But the fact that the Government parties lost votes while the Opposition opposing the referendum gained makes that argument seem lacking in veracity to me.

Oh and MadSL, you comparison with wackos in the Catholic Church and the extent of support for them in the West (including Ireland) with the support for extremist clerics in the Muslim world is not comparing like with like, especially when you consider the vast crowds that turn out in the Middle East in support of such extremists. Don't deny what you see on the television screen just to fit in with political-correctness.

MadsL

Don't deny what you see on the television screen just to fit in with political-correctness.

And don't believe everything you see on TV applies to the whole religion either, or do you just use it to confirm your prejudices...

your comparison with wackos in the Catholic Church and the extent of support for them in the West (including Ireland) with the support for extremist clerics in the Muslim world is not comparing like with like

No, my comparison with other 'wackos' was s a t i r e :rolleyes: to point out how idiotic your comments were. Maybe the sarcasm tags confused you.

however...

the vast crowds that turn out in the Middle East in support of such extremists

are nothing like the vast crowds that turn out at IRA terrorist funerals...guess not...I saw it on TV - maybe it is true.

I take it in response to my question about whether you had visited a muslim country, you have not. I doubt you have ever even met any muslims, but you are prepared to judge an entire culture by what you see on the TV news.

It is said that the Irish are hospitable, yet I have never experienced in Ireland the overwhelming hospitality of muslim hosts. Arcade you really should get out more and open your eyes a little before writing off an entire religion...even if it is just up to Clonskeagh, and the mosque there..

So, I'll repeat what I asked earlier, a request for you to justify your statement and tell me how Muslims in this country can be judged to have a dubious ability to integrate on the basis that they have answered a census question truthfully - it is a monsterous slander and it DEMANDS a withdrawal unless you have any independent evidence that you can point to.

There is a word for people who say negative things about an entire race or culture without any evidence or grounds - and you do not like being called it - but if it walks like a bigot and spews racial slurs like a bigot ...well fúck me ...its a bigot.

BuffyBot

Don't deny what you see on the television screen just to fit in with political-correctness.

Oh sweet lord. In this day and age, do you not know better than to take a critical view of whats broadcasted on TV?

arcadegame2004

There is a word for people who say negative things about an entire race or culture without any evidence or grounds - and you do not like being called it - but if it walks like a bigot and spews racial slurs like a bigot ...well fúck me ...its a bigot.

Ahem. Where did I say that the "entire" Muslim "race or culture" was supportive of such extremists? I made the point that it has been clearly demonstrated, including by opinion-polls in some of these Arab countries particularly, that extremism in the Muslim world and even support for Al-Qaeda carries considerable support there. That is NOT to tar all Muslims with the same brush. Unfortunately, this is partly a consequence of the policy of the unpopular ruling regimes in the Arab world (not a single member of which is a democracy) to distract attention from their vicious abuses of human-rights by ordering their media to spread anti-Western vitriol.

Phil_321

For all those who think the referendum was unfair... What fairer way is there to let a countries citizens decided on something than a referendum?
The decision was placed in the hands of the people and they voted overwhelmingly "Yes". Get it into your heads, this is what the people of Ireland wanted.

And contrary to your beliefs, the "Yes" voters are not intellectually inferior "No" voters.
We knew what we were voting for, to close a loophole in our Constitution and bring us in line with the rest of the EU. Not what the "No" campaign tried to make it out as....Ie. the referendum will rid Ireland of all foreigners.

Btw, The referendum wasn't racist because it applies to all races equally.

MrPudding

Phil_321 wrote:

For all those who think the referendum was unfair... What fairer way is there to let a countries citizens decided on something than a referendum?
The decision was placed in the hands of the people and they voted overwhelmingly "Yes". Get it into your heads, this is what the people of Ireland wanted.

And contrary to your beliefs, the "Yes" voters are not intellectually inferior "No" voters.
We knew what we were voting for, to close a loophole in our Constitution and bring us in line with the rest of the EU. Not what the "No" campaign tried to make it out as....Ie. the referendum will rid Ireland of all foreigners.

Btw, The referendum wasn't racist because it applies to all races equally.

You see this is where the problem is. I you refer to the exit polls and even ask some people who voted yes you will see that a large number of people did nit vote yes for the right reason. You see a lot of the people I asked did vote to try to rid Ireland of the foreigners or at least stop the flood (tm) of darkies etc from coming and stealing jobs, wimin, dole and lets not forget the houses (that one is for you ArcadeGame.)

Perhaps you knew exactly what you were doing but that does not mean everyone did.

MrP

Phil_321

No weren't voting to rid Ireland of foreigners, but yes they were voiting to stop the flood and to stop some of the immigrants from "stealing jobs, wimin, dole and houses", by using their children to exploit a constitutional loophole.

Why did these abusers of the system end up in Ireland, rather than stay in one of the countries they passed through on the way here, as they should've done? That's right, the loophole, and the welfare benefits.

Tuars

Phil_321 wrote:

Why did these abusers of the system end up in Ireland, rather than stay in one of the countries they passed through on the way here, as they should've done? That's right, the loophole, and the welfare benefits.

I'll say it one more time, the citizenship referendum does not have anything to do with the asylum seeker process. The change does not have any affect on the ability of asylum seekers to abuse the system. It only affects who qualifies for citizenship. Seeking asylum does not relate to citizenship.

The people who were exploiting the loophole were not doing so to claim benefits in Ireland. They were doing so as a means to claim residency in another EU country (e.g. Great Britain in the Chen case). They had no intention of ever staying in Ireland. And indeed they had no need to claim welfare since in order to take advantage of the loophole (solicitor costs etc.) they were by definition well-off enough not to qualify for welfare in the first place.

Once more I'll say it, the citizenship referendum does not impact the asylum process in any way.

Phil_321

Actually it did impact the asylum process. Something like 60% of women over the age of 16 arriving from Nigeria were pregnant in 2003, many of them late in their pregnancies. So why risk travelling 1000's of miles, there were plenty of EU countries closer to them in Ireland... So they could have their child in Ireland and then they could stay when the child was granted automatic citizenship. Even when the Supreme court ruled the parents weren't guaranteed citizenship in these circumstances, the parents were generally allowed to stay(without needing to apply for asylum). Hence the referendum.

You're right about the Chen case, there was also another group of people abusing the loophole for other reasons.
So that's two separate abuses of the system, all the more reason to close the loophole.

MrPudding

IIRC the referendum does nothing for "chen" type cases. In that case the child would not have been recognised by it's parents country. Even after the referendum a child in those circumstances will get citizenship.

Phil, can you post a link to the figures of pregnant Nigerian asylum seekers? And quoting Arcadegame will not be enough.

MrP

omnicorp

Why do we have to copy other countries anyway?
Just because the rest of the EU imposes these laws, doesn't mean we have to.
Just because the USA enforces execution doesn't mean we have to.
This country can be independent if it wants to.