The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Ahem. Where did I say that the "entire" Muslim "race or culture" was supportive of such extremists?

You didn't - you made the point that the entire Muslim "race or culture" (its a religion, actually, but expecting accuracy from you seems to be a lost cause) needs to be controlled in terms of their access to this country because of the actions of a few.

Personally, I agree with MadSL - you should either accept that this attitude is discriminatory or withdraw it. At this point, you're only digging yourself in deeper.

You commented previously those who marked "non-Irish" were clearly unable to assimilate, despite the fact that it wasn't a question of what they considered themself, but rather a legal requirement to accurate describe their classification. Since this has been pointed out to you by someone who falsely fitted your ridiculous "unable to assimilate" conclusion, you've basically got on the back foot, trying to say that you were talking about smaller and smaller subsets.

Newsflash arcadegame2004 : every time you start decreasing the quiantity of people you're actually referring to, you only show how farcical the figures you trotted out at the start to back your own argument were.

Given that the inaccurate figures were what you started from, it would appear at this stage that you haven't got a single fact left that you haven't already had to requalify with a "well, obviously I'm not talking about all of them", and are now basically arguing a stance based on nothing but opinion and unfounded or baseless conclusions.

As for accepting the outcome of the referendum like a good democratic citizen....do I need to refer you to the post you made where you were complaining bitterly about our government not enacting legislation immediately (despite it being their legal right to do what they did), and basically complaining about how the system needed to be changed, because despite getting the result you wanted, you weren't getting the result you wanted?

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.

Yes, without showing any of the opinion polls. So this would be unfounded speculation at this point, not fact.

Not only that, but continue to ignore the reality that opinion polls in our only land-connected neighbour would similarly show large support for terrorist organisations - possibly (and yes, I'm speculating) even higher than Al Qaeda would have in any nation. We don't hear you ranting on about the threat from the Republican or Unionist extremists in the North and how we need to protect ourselves from them.

That is NOT to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

Can we clarify? You do, or do not, find the threat of terrorism from Muslim fundamentalists to be a reason to restrict the access Muslims have to our nation - as immigrants, in terms of obtaining citizenship, or any other way?

If the answer is that you do, then quite frankly your statement above is false to the verge of being a lie, as you most certainly are tarring all Muslims with a same brush - you don't think they're all terrorists, but you think they all need to be discriminated against.

If the answer is that you do not think something needs to be done, then what in the name of all that you hold dear are you on about, as this has as much relevance to the discussion as the price of wheat in China.

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.

Stick to the topic please....lets not get distracted by your fantastical conspiracy theories.

jc

omnicorp

What would this have done to all the Irish who emigrated to the UK and US during the Famine and during the 80's?

I imagine it would have been quite serious since most of them weren't all that well off if they were leaving.

I think the world would have been a different place. Imagine no St Patricks day parade in New York!

Phil_321

MrPudding wrote:

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.

No, the child won't, because the parents now have to live here for a few years before the child is entitled to citizenship. The Chen case was widely acknowledged as a valid reason for the referendum, ie to stop citizenship tourism.

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

Here's some info:
Info

I'm not quoting anyone, I just skimmed through the last page of this thread. I started a thread on the Referendum about a month before it started so I have a fair I idea what I'm talking about.

omnicorp

So are car crashes an excuse to ban cars?

MrPudding

Phil_321 wrote:

No, the child won't, because the parents now have to live here for a few years before the child is entitled to citizenship. The Chen case was widely acknowledged as a valid reason for the referendum, ie to stop citizenship tourism.



Here's some info:
Info

I'm not quoting anyone, I just skimmed through the last page of this thread. I started a thread on the Referendum about a month before it started so I have a fair I idea what I'm talking about.

Interesting document. It seems to show that the numbers of pregnant applicants had fallen considerably over the previous 12 months. Was the referandum really needed?

You seem to have missed the point of the Chen case. From my recollection the Chen child would not be a Chinese national due to Chinas single child rules. Therefore the child would have been "nationless." In cases where the child is nationless it is given citizenship of the country it is born in. Therefore, regardless of the referendum result and any subsequent legislation the Chen child would still get Irish citizenship regardless of the status of the parents.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, actually here is a link to a poll finding that Arab's see Osama Bin Laden as the world's fourth most-admired "leader"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7080-2004Jul22.html

Omnicorp, your point on the Famine is not comparing like with like, since there is no Famine in Nigeria, Romania, Ukraine, or Moldova - the main sources of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland. Anyone genuinely fleeing terrible conditions escaped then when they landed in Spain, Italy, Greece of wherever the first place of entry in the EU was.

Not only that, but continue to ignore the reality that opinion polls in our only land-connected neighbour would similarly show large support for terrorist organisations - possibly (and yes, I'm speculating) even higher than Al Qaeda would have in any nation. We don't hear you ranting on about the threat from the Republican or Unionist extremists in the North and how we need to protect ourselves from them.

But there is now a peace-deal in NI. I don't recall Al Qaeda calling a truce with the West. And the scale of Al-Qaeda attacks is definetely massively out of proportion to attacks by any terrorist group in NI.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Omnicorp, your point on the Famine is not comparing like with like, since there is no Famine in Nigeria, Romania, Ukraine, or Moldova - the main sources of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland.

What about his point regarding Irish emigrants in the 80s?

gom

I voted no

But seen as the government has not yet to my knowledge introduced or repealed any law reguarding non-national births being awarded Irish citizenship, nothing as of present has changed other than the constitution.

Rev Hellfire

omnicorp wrote:

So are car crashes an excuse to ban cars?

No, but it does provide a reason in which control their use. No society can function without checks and balances.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Gom
But seen as the government has not yet to my knowledge introduced or repealed any law reguarding non-national births being awarded Irish citizenship, nothing as of present has changed other than the constitution.

Even the Constitution has not changed yet! Amendments to the Constitution require both a referendum and then an amending act to be passed by the Dail and Seanad. I agree that it is strange that the Government didn't move quicker on the actual implementation of the referendum result. But then, historically, this Government has been very inefficient when it comes to passing planned legislation according to timetables, as the falling behind schedule of a LOT of planned bills bears testament to. Many of those bills are essential so the lateness of the Government legislative response to the referendum result should not be seen as an indicator of the importance of the referendum.

Originally posted by therecklessone
What about his point regarding Irish emigrants in the 80s?

We were never in a position to put significant strain on the American taxpayer because even if the entire Irish nation moved to the US or Britain, we would be a tiny minority and would always remain so. The proportion of the populations of these countries that were Irish wasn't going to go from 1 to 6% in just 5 years, unlike what has happened since the immigration of the late nineties with respect to the proportion of our population that is non-national.

Originally Posted by omnicorp
So are car crashes an excuse to ban cars?

No. The Citizenship-referendum was not using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. It wasn't closing the door completely on immigration or on foreigners and their children gaining citizenship.It was imply ending a free-for-all that was encouraging women to turn up pregnant in Ireland for reasons that had nothing to do with fleeing persecution, unless you consider Germany, France, Spain, Italy or some of these countries to be countries with oppressive regimes.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, actually here is a link to a poll finding that Arab's see Osama Bin Laden as the world's fourth most-admired "leader"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7080-2004Jul22.html

I take it you read that news story with your rose coloured glasses removed? What it reads to me is that US policy is making more people side with terrorists.

To Quote: Those polled said their opinions were shaped by U.S. policies, rather than by values or culture. When asked: "What is the first thought when you hear 'America'?" respondents overwhelmingly said: "Unfair foreign policy."

It has nothing to do with Muslims like OBL just for the sake of it. In fact prior 9/11 AQ didn't have as much support as it did now, and OBL was about to be kicked from AQ before the US attacks.

Omnicorp, your point on the Famine is not comparing like with like, since there is no Famine in Nigeria, Romania, Ukraine, or Moldova

Same effects, different names.

But there is now a peace-deal in NI. I don't recall Al Qaeda calling a truce with the West. And the scale of Al-Qaeda attacks is definetely massively out of proportion to attacks by any terrorist group in NI.

The effects are the same. AQ calling a truce? Their demands haven't been met or addressed except by the bullet. In NI the returning of civil rights (to the people, not the terrorists) had a lot to do with the terror attacks dropping.

Do you even know what the AQ want? Also as for calling a truce, they did say they would do more terror attacks on Spain if they didn't pulled out of Iraq. Has there been any?

note: I see AQ as criminals. But to claim that they are incapable of being dealt with through diplomancy or dealing with their demands in a different way is shortsighted.

arcadegame2004

I see AQ as criminals. But to claim that they are incapable of being dealt with through diplomancy or dealing with their demands in a different way is shortsighted.

They ARE criminals. No it is not shortsighted. Their stated aim is to kill anyone who doesn't convert to Islam. Osama has stated this. He said in a notorious interview a few years ago that 'we do not distinguish between military and civilians - they are all targets'. Shades of Adolf Hitler and his views on the "Herrenvolk" (Master race") and the "inferior peoples" who must be "exterminated".

Osama is a Nazi.

The_Conductor

Stooping to the levels of AQ is every bit as short sighted and abhorent as any act they commit. One wrong cannot justify another. Have we gone so far as to have totally lost all ability to intelligently access situations and deal with them in a manner acceptable to most reasonable people?

S.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

TTheir stated aim is to kill anyone who doesn't convert to Islam. Osama has stated this.

Where did you get the gem from? Next you will be saying they hate our freedoms. :rolleyes:

The AQ were created to fight off the communists in the Soviet-Afgan war. During that time the US actually helped them. OBL himself has even gone on record of personally thanking the US in helping them.

Its current hatred to the US is because it sees it sees the US interfering with Islamic countries governments to help out its corporations. Also the US having troops in Saudi which it considers holy ground (the US have since 2003 withdrawn almost all their troops from SA, but for Iraq, not OBL).

They also see the unfairness in the US picking sides with Israel (who they have extreme hatred against). More recently they are looking for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and Afganistan.

Osama is a Nazi.

Hello Godwin. Saying that the Irish race deserve better then other nationalities is also a form of nazism (well more Facism).

Btw, comparing Muslims to AQ is insulting in the extreme.

ionapaul

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We were never in a position to put significant strain on the American taxpayer because even if the entire Irish nation moved to the US or Britain, we would be a tiny minority and would always remain so. The proportion of the populations of these countries that were Irish wasn't going to go from 1 to 6% in just 5 years, unlike what has happened since the immigration of the late nineties with respect to the proportion of our population that is non-national.

In 1860 the Irish-born population of New York City was approximately 25%. With the American-born children of Irish immigrants included, that figure must have approached 35%. There were similar percentages of Irish immigrants, unskilled, unhealthy and frequently unable to speak English fluently, in cities throughout the Eastern seaboard.

It'll take some influx of pregnant women to match those figures!

arcadegame2004

Hello Godwin. Saying that the Irish race deserve better then other nationalities is also a form of nazism (well more Facism).

It is NOT Nazism to deny citizenship to foreigners living here. If it were, then every country in the world is practicing "Nazism". But then, the hard-left revel in labelling even centrist politicians as "far-right", so it should hardly be too surprising to the moderate majority that they are using such terminology. The hard-left have become increasingly vocal in recent years.

Hobbes

It is facism to claim that somehow the Irish nationality are better then others. Which is what you are seeming to suggest.

You keep going on about third world countries how they are not as good as us so they don't deserve to be here.

bobbyjoe

The Chen case was widely acknowledged as a valid reason for the referendum, ie to stop citizenship tourism

The Chen case was used as an example of citizenship tourism.
If I was in charge and wanted a Yes vote I'd pick the best example I could find in order to convince people of this "problem". there must have been plenty considering the floods!!!
But the Chen case was selected, which as many people have pointed out, here again by MrPudding the exact same thing could happen again once this thing is passed. Link

This suggests that there weren't many/any examples of "citizenship tourism" to use in the campaign as such a weak one was used.

The hard-left have become increasingly vocal in recent years.

Yes we must keep them quiet those peskey hard left people. Whats wrong with a gentle left turn on a sloping hill.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The proportion of the populations of these countries that were Irish wasn't going to go from 1 to 6% in just 5 years, unlike what has happened since the immigration of the late nineties with respect to the proportion of our population that is non-national.

Immigration into this country has been driven largely by legal migrants, either fellow EU citizens or non-EU nationals on work permits. They are here because they are allowed to be here.

Irish immigrants to the US in the 80s were largely illegal. They were there despite the US being in recession for much of the decade.

Are you telling me that they had no effect on employment? Housing?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Shades of Adolf Hitler and his views on the "Herrenvolk" (Master race")

Shades of yourself and your "Ireland for the Irish" as well...

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

so it should hardly be too surprising to the moderate majority that they are using such terminology.

You sir are no moderate...

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But there is now a peace-deal in NI. I don't recall Al Qaeda calling a truce with the West. And the scale of Al-Qaeda attacks is definetely massively out of proportion to attacks by any terrorist group in NI.

Right. So what you're saying is that if Al Qaeda declared a ceasefire, then OBL would - all of a sudden - become acceptable in your eyes. Nothing would be wrong with the man nor with the support he had.

And lets keep the analagy going...."ceasefire" could involve AQ splintering into multiple factions, with various sub-factions attempting to continue the fght, whilst the main faction "only" engaging in mild forms of human rights abuses rather than all-out terrorist attacks....

If that happened, you'd have no problem from that point forward with OBL, or Muslims in general?

And before you fall back on your alleged "kill all non-Muslims" thing, bear in mind that pre-ceasefire, there was one and only one goal for Republicans and that was 32 counties.

But I guess its just another example of the bigotry that I've grown so familiar to reading in your posts. Muslim == dodgy and bad. Irish == our culture and good and to be preserved. Ireland for the Irish. And the Muslims? They can go to Hell or to Afghanistan, I guess. Who gives a **** really as long as they're not here, threatening us and our way of life.

I don't know why I bother. I mean...I just saw that you've once again dragged up the Chen case, despite having admitted in a thread at the time that you were aware that the Chen case fell outside the remit of what the referendum was trying to change.

I mean...honestly...just how ****ing stupid do you think the regulars here are?

jc

omnicorp

Why has this turned into a debate about Al Queda and the IRA?

sceptre

Almost back on topic, Sky One are currently showing the "Your taxes (including bear patrol tax) are high because of illegal immigrants!" episode. Quimby uses all the same arguments as McDowell so there must be some validity in there somewhere.

Hobbes

omnicorp wrote:

Why has this turned into a debate about Al Queda and the IRA?

Your new here aren't you? It is almost at its end. It stops when someone goes on about how bad the shinners were (kind of an Irish godwins law).

arcadegame2004

In 1860 the Irish-born population of New York City was approximately 25%. With the American-born children of Irish immigrants included, that figure must have approached 35%. There were similar percentages of Irish immigrants, unskilled, unhealthy and frequently unable to speak English fluently, in cities throughout the Eastern seaboard.

Yes and there was no such thing as social-welfare back then. And one city is not a microcosm of the entire United States.

Hobbes I am NOT saying that we are racially superior to other races. Europe itself went through a period of religious fanaticism. That does not make the European people "inferior/stupid etc.". I feel that most of the Muslim world is now experiencing a level of religious zeal comparable to 17th century Europe, and that this is very dangerous. That does not make them "inferior" but it does pose a potential threat if some of them (and I accept the terrorist element is a minority anomg Muslims) they abuse our immigration system to infiltrate the west, as seen in the Madrid bombings.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

but it does pose a potential threat if some of them (and I accept the terrorist element is a minority anomg Muslims) they abuse our immigration system to infiltrate the west, as seen in the Madrid bombings.

Yes, but your "solution" is to tar them all with the same brush and say "sorry mate, your religion makes you too risky. Hop it."

You'd want to be careful though....do that to enough minorities, and you won't be able to scare anyone with "help! They'll overrun us" with the remainder you don't want.

jc

arcadegame2004

Yes, but your "solution" is to tar them all with the same brush and say "sorry mate, your religion makes you too risky. Hop it."

Reminds me of the argument used by the US gun-lobby i.e. why should we all be punished for the actions of a minority. Such an argument is unpersuasive to me.

Sparks

Such an argument is unpersuasive to me.

I'm less than shocked to note that you haven't even gotten the argument correct. The US "gun lobby" argues against gun control on the basis that it is not moral to punish the law-abiding shooting community for the already-illegal acts of criminals and that the gun control laws sought by the "anti-gun lobby" will not prevent these illegal acts from being perpetuated by criminals anyway.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Yes and there was no such thing as social-welfare back then.

But they were taking jobs that could have gone to natives, yes? And their frequent lack of English made their integration much more difficult, didn't it?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

And one city is not a microcosm of the entire United States.

Are you illiterate? Read the post you quoted again.