The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

AngelofFire

I voted no in the citizenship referendum, both my parents are foreign and i dont see why i am any less irish than people with indigenous parents.The referendum was endorsed by the KKK this is a serious indictment behind the motivations behind the Klans honourary grand wizard Michael McDowell.

arcadegame2004

I voted no in the citizenship referendum, both my parents are foreign and i dont see why i am any less irish than people with indigenous parents.The referendum was endorsed by the KKK this is a serious indictment behind the motivations behind the Klans honourary grand wizard Michael McDowell.

Well you weren't affected by the referendum directly. And even if you had been born after it you would probably still get Irish citizenship automatically on account of how long you're parents lived in Ireland before your birth.

Hitler liked German Shepherds. So are most German Shepherd owners racist?

What about the "motivations" of the rest of Europe, not one country of which allowed what we allowed with respect to automatic citizenship after birth on their national territory to foreign parents, irrespective of length of time spent in that country by the parents?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well you weren't affected by the referendum directly. And even if you had been born after it you would probably still get Irish citizenship automatically on account of how long you're parents lived in Ireland before your birth.

Probably? I'm sure thats a great comfort.

What about the "motivations" of the rest of Europe,

What about them? What relevance do they have on the choices we make for ourselves????

jc

AngelofFire

My parents settled here 4 years before i was born, i also have a brother whos 2 years older than i am.He and I have always had an irish passport, AFAIK even before the Good Friday Agreement some irish children born of foreign parents were granted citizenship but i`ll have to look that one up sometime.

arcadegame2004

What about them? What relevance do they have on the choices we make for ourselves????

If their decisions affect us indirectly, then their decisions become part of the reason why we are entitled to adapt. I see the referendum on citizenship as part of that process. By having less liberal immigrant-to-citizen rules than us, they encouraged (inadvertedly or otherwise) citizenship-tourism to Ireland, with all the costs that entailed for the Irish taxpayer. Had we allowed the situation to continue, the strain on the hospitals and the costs of housing the newcomers would only have increased. Hence, the decisions of other EU states influenced our own.

You may bring up the old chestnut that "no other EU country asked us to change the Constitution". That doesn't matter. The above is sufficient reason for us to have changed our rules.

NinjaBart

is this calculation about how irelnad would have been overwhelmed and the strain on the hospitals based on the same sort of argument that you thought we were going to have 92000 immigrants a year based on how many registered in the first quarter after the nice treaty came into effect? that "i'm not racist, honest guv" protest is quite bizarre. "i'm not racist but those muslims can **** off".

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

Are you seriously comparing all Muslims to hand guns? (only the minority kill people but they all have the potential)

And you wonder why people call you racist. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is you do not remove the entire system because some people are abusing it, you just deal with those abusing it or absorb them as the "cost" of the system. Yes a tiny amount of people come over here to get EU citizenship for their kids. That is an abuse of the system. SO WHAT! It is a small price to pay when you realise that no system is perfect and removing the entire system just to stop this tiny abuse is vastly more damaging that simply absorbing it.

Next you well be saying we should get rid of the dole because some people claim twice, or remove the education grant because some self employed people claim it when they don't need to.

Arcade you are the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your policies do more harm than good in the long run, and as you attempt to protect the ideal of Ireland you only help to destroy what makes Ireland a nice place to live.

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

wft? Is this a retraction, apology? what?

So lets get this straight...a quick recap of your arguments so far...

1. All immigrants have a problem integrating into Irish society cus they said they were immigrants on the census form.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

"With 6% of the population identifying themselves as "not Irish" on the Census form in 2002, it is clear that the ability of the immigrants to assimilate is open to question."

2. Sorry, I didn't mean not UK people, or any other rich people...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

comparing most of the immigrants coming to Ireland nowadays with immigrant from the UK where you came from is not comparing like with like, because being a fellow rich country,

3. Muslims are terrorists... mmmkay. I've seen it on TV. We don't need them here.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Experience in the UK has been that unfortunately, the Muslim community there includes a lot of these kind of wackos. We do NOT need this in Ireland.

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.

4. Well, I'd not say all Muslims are terrorrists...

I accept the terrorist element is a minority anomg Muslims

So up=down now...smells like a U turn to me....

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Wicknight
The fact of the matter is you do not remove the entire system because some people are abusing it, you just deal with those abusing it or absorb them as the "cost" of the system. Yes a tiny amount of people come over here to get EU citizenship for their kids. That is an abuse of the system. SO WHAT! It is a small price to pay when you realise that no system is perfect and removing the entire system just to stop this tiny abuse is vastly more damaging that simply absorbing it.

I wouldn't call 61,000 asylum-seekers a "tiny number". Maybe you would. That reflects your position on the argument about whether we should adopt liberal vs. controlled immigration policies, and you are entitled to your opinion. But in a democracy, I am equally entitled to espouse my point of view. In a democracy, all sides of political thought are allowed express their views, no matter how strongly you or I agree with them. So the spirit of democracy is harmed when some call for the thread to be "closed" because my views do not coincide with theirs.

My views on immigration into Ireland are extremely widespread and it isn't that hard to find plenty of evidence from talking to ordinary people that this is so. Or else from observing the referendum result.

people come over here to get EU citizenship for their kids.

The entire Third World would like to come here (I sure would in their position). But a society requires certain limitations on what people can and cannot do, or anarchy results. I resent having to fork out money to those whose only reason for getting pregnant is gaining the right to stay here. I equally resent forking out money to house the fake asylum-seekers who protest their flight from persecution even after crossing the national boundaries of 6 or 7 safe EU states before getting here. It is a lot of money which could be saved.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I wouldn't call 61,000 asylum-seekers a "tiny number". Maybe you would.

Compared to what? 1? 1000? or 4 million (which is roughly the population of the south). So lets see.

4,000,000
61,000

Yes it looks small to me. By the way where did you get that magical number from? Even with juggling the numbers I can't get anywhere near that figure you quoted.

So the spirit of democracy is harmed when some call for the thread to be "closed" because my views do not coincide with theirs.

I think they are asking for it to be closed because you can't put forward an argument that isn't racist. but then I wouldn't worry about the hecklers as the mods will let you spout away.

MrPudding

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The entire Third World would like to come here (I sure would in their position)....

Hmm, they might not if they realised they might meet people like you.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I resent having to fork out money to those whose only reason for getting pregnant is gaining the right to stay here.

This is interesting. Can you provide me link to the data which shows this was their reason for getting pregnant. Or is this yet another gem made up by you?

MrP

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I wouldn't call 61,000 asylum-seekers a "tiny number". Maybe you would.

You see, this is what I am talking about. Firstly the UK had 61,000 asylum-seeker application (not even approvals) in 2003. Out of a population of 50 million that is just over 0.1 percent of the total population.

Ireland had 8000 applications in 2003. That is 0.2 percent of the total population.

Secondly the vast majority of these are genuine. I could probably work out the percentage of false ayslum seekers but my calculater doesn't have that many zeros after the decimile point.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But in a democracy, I am equally entitled to espouse my point of view. In a democracy, all sides of political thought are allowed express their views, no matter how strongly you or I agree with them.

Not when you use false statistics to justify your scaremongering tactics (see above)

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I resent having to fork out money to those whose only reason for getting pregnant is gaining the right to stay here. I equally resent forking out money to house the fake asylum-seekers who protest their flight from persecution even after crossing the national boundaries of 6 or 7 safe EU states before getting here. It is a lot of money which could be saved.

I resent having to pay taxes for everytime a drunk person falls into A&E. But I do it because I believe in the overall system of A&E. I believe in the system of migration. Irish people have used it for hundreds of years and I too hope that if I had to I too could migrate to someone with better prospects. Yes people abuse the system. Irish people have been abusing immigration systems all over the world for decades. I know a ton of people working illegally in the US. But you have to take the tiny amount of abuse and absorb it, not attempt to abolish the entire system because a tiny amount are abusing it.

arcadegame2004

Secondly the vast majority of these are genuine. I could probably work out the percentage of false ayslum seekers but my calculater doesn't have that many zeros after the decimile point.

The vasy majority are NOT genuine. 93% of asylum-applications were rejected last year. As far as I and most people are concerned, a genuine-asylum-seeker means someone fleeing persecution, famine, or war who claims in the first EU country of entry, legalistic stuff nothwithstanding.

You are not a "refugee" if you cross 6 or 7 EU states on the way to Ireland and then claim asylum.

BTW, thr 61,000 doesn't include the much larger number of foreigners handed work-permits. We need some of the latter but we also need to look after our own people first. So future numbers should be restricted.

MrPudding

I ask you again Arcadegame2004 can you please provides a link to the information that shows that woman are getting pregnant solely to allow them to claim citizenship in Ireland? I am fcuking sick to the back teeth of your endless making up of facts.

Bonkey, from the guidelines sticky wrote:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Arcadegame2004 constantly flouts this little rule. I am fed up with it and I don’t think I am the only one. I strongly feel that he deserves, at the very least, a warning for repeatedly ignoring requests to back up his claims. Several people have been banned from this forum due to making comments that they should not have out of pure frustration at the unsubstantiated rubbish he posts.

MrP

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The vasy majority are NOT genuine. 93% of asylum-applications were rejected last year.

Indeed. So why are you whining? Or are you saying there are fakes within the 7% as well?

BTW, thr 61,000 doesn't include the much larger number of foreigners handed work-permits.

Where did you get the 61,000 figure. Please post a link. I had a look at some of the official sites and I couldn't get anywhere near that figure even when adding the last few years.

we also need to look after our own people first.

:rolleyes:

ronanp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

This poll was very unrepresentative of the referendum result last time. It is a poll of internet-users, not registered voters.Let's just be clear on that first. It would again pass. 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.

Interesting, especially when followed by....

No other EU state allowed citizenship solely deriving from being born here.

You know, if you disliked our country as it was before the referendum, there were 146 others for you to go to......

What is unpatriotic about wanting people born here to be Irish citizens? Is it really patriotic to want people born in Ireland, in Irish hospitals, and with residential addresses in Ireland, to be deported to the source of their ethnic group? Even though they've neither been there nor ever even heard of it?

And what is this patriotism of which you speak? Are union-jack waving, maggie-thatcher loving tory english football lager louts being patriotic when they bellow out god save the queen at half 4 in the bastarding morning in some faraway continental residential area that is forever england? Is that what we should strive for? Blind, unthinking, unquestioning sheep?

I dont dislike our country. I'm quite fond of it. Will I support it whatever direction it takes, wherever it goes, and under whomever it's under? **** no, that'd just be ****ing stupid...


And then, just when i thought I was finished, I saw this...

we also need to look after our own people first.

And wondered why I bothered with all the typing, and the thinking, because I truly, truly, believe its wasted on you. I beg you to prove me wrong, and tell me who "our own people" are. Since its quite clear you dont refer to people born here.

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Twe also need to look after our own people first

Do me a favour arcade - don't count me amongst "your people".

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

As far as I and most people are concerned, a genuine-asylum-seeker means someone fleeing persecution, famine, or war who claims in the first EU country of entry, legalistic stuff nothwithstanding.

More fiction...but at least you've got the honesty this time to admit that this definition is irrespective what the law says.

Oh - and I'd like you to either back up your assertion that this is what most people believe or withdraw it. I've had it with your disdain for our policy of making it clear when you're expressing an opinion and not fact, and now I'm going to start enforcing it with regards to which I see as blatant fiction like this.

So...back it up with fact, or withdraw it. And fact is not you mis-interpreting or drawing loose conclusions from something which hints that this might be the case.....so lets not have more "if you take the people who answered this question on the exit-poll, and completely re-interpret what they may have been saying...." thanks.

You are not a "refugee" if you cross 6 or 7 EU states on the way to Ireland and then claim asylum.

I'll do you the favour of assuming that limiting your definition to the number of EU states they cross is in error given that there is no law to that effect. After all, they may have crossed half a dozen non-EU states first, and shouldn't that also count? Or are the EU borders somehow special, and we should - for example - accept a refugee who came here via the US, or via Canada, but not via the EU.

So you seem to basically be saying that no-one should be able to seek refuge in any nation other than one adjacent to, or served by a direct flight/boat from the region they are fleeing. BEcause otherwise they're not seeking refuge in the first safe haven, and then are clearly only benefit shopping

Convenient notion, except that its completely unworkable....unless you'd be willing to accept the authority of a body like the UN to assign refugees to us in numbers according to their need. Would you accept that arcade? That a non-Irish cody could assign us a fair number of refugees based on the number who needed help, and the number and relative capability of nations willing to assist?

Would you accept that, even if it led to a doubling of the numbers we currently take on, because it would spread the load fairly, rather than crippling the nations adjacent to a conflict, whilst allowing isolated nations like ourselves to remain comfy and "safe" from all those dangerous foreigners?

Would you?

So future numbers should be restricted.

Future numbers of what???

The number you produced was for - by your own allegation - asylum seekers, and not immigrants.

By your own admission, 93% were refused asylum, meaning that of the 61,000, our own legal system permits and entire 4270 of them to remain. If more than that are allowed to remain it is not the fault of the laws we have or had, but rather how we enforce them - a fact which I have repeatedly pointed out to you which you continue to ignore with abandon.

So...given that you were discussing asylum seekers here, exactly what needs to be restricted?

- The number of people we allow to ask for asylum here?

- The number of genuine cases we let in? (i.e. are you proposing that we identify genuine cases and send them home to get killed or persecuted some more?)? Because 4270 is just far too many people for a nation of our size to help keep alive or free from persecution. Hell, its almost .1% of our population per year. At that rate, they'd swamp us in a millenia or so!!!

- The completely unrelated number of immigrants we allow into the country that has nothing to do with these numbers you've been throwing about

Ultimately, your argument re: asylum seekers can be boiled down to a simple and blunt truth : we live in an isolated location, relative to the instability in the world. We should leverage that to ensure that others bear the responsibility of helping the oppressed, rather than trying to help them ourselves.

If thats the world you want to see, I'm glad to be of a different opinion to you.

jc

The_Conductor

Hobbes wrote:

Where did you get the 61,000 figure. Please post a link. I had a look at some of the official sites and I couldn't get anywhere near that figure even when adding the last few years.
:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the 61,000 figure is correct.
It is the accepted figure by the refugee council of the number of refugees claiming asylum status to have entered the country since January 1993 to April of this year.

Links:

(Esp. Table 27 in this document- has number of official applications from 1993 onwards)

http://www.cori.ie/justice/soc_issues/culture.htm

(And to dispel Asylum seeker myths.......)
http://www.nccri.com/pdf/myths.pdf


I neeeeeeeedddddd coofffffffffeeeeeeee!!!!!

Hobbes

smccarrick wrote:

Unfortunately the 61,000 figure is correct.
It is the accepted figure by the refugee council of the number of refugees claiming asylum status to have entered the country since January 1993 to April of this year.

I added up since 1992 and it comes to 59,000. So I guess that for this year there were only 2,000 accepted asylum seekers (and I'm being generous). It still means the figures Arcade is quoting doesn't add up.

If we were to use Arcadegames logic in counting it would mean that there are roughly 48 million Irish people in Ireland (just added all the totals for each year and claimed that is what is there now).

61,000 is a small figure vs 4 million. It is a minute figure if you break it down over 12 years that people got accepted asylum.

So going on about "OMG 61,000 here! do you want that many again?". It would require over 6 years (based on the sites figures) to get another 61,000. But according to Arcades figures, it would require up to 30 years.

Statistics aren't great. For example, out of the supposed 61,000 how many now pay taxes and work? How many have left the country since?

The_Conductor

Yip- my calculations are the same.

If you really wanted to throw another spanner in the calculations- the second largest group of asylum seekers are from Roumania. As an accession state to the EU, they are EU citizens in their own right, and no longer entitled to apply for refugee status here. All applications being processed were summarily dismissed in April- numbering thousands...... That knocks a few more off the figure, but of course it doesn't suit them to acknowledge this........

S.

Hobbes

That Myths PDF is a very good link Some bits Arcade you might want to read..

Asylum seekers are a relatively small proportion of
the total inward migration into Ireland in recent
years:

• Between 1995 and 2000, some 50% of the total
immigration into Ireland was returning Irish
migrants (123,000 people). Both EU and US
nationals accounted for 38% (79,000), and a
remaining 12% (29,400 people) were from the
rest of the world.

• In 2001, there were 36,000 work visas and
permits issued to people outside the EEA
(European Economic Area) to allow and
encourage them to work in Ireland compared
with just over 10,000 applications for asylum.

• The vast majority of the world’s refugees
continue to seek asylum in an immediate
neighbouring country or within their region, for
example, millions of people from Afghanistan
who sought protection in Iran or Pakistan.

• One in five recognised refugees in Ireland have
voluntarily returned to their home country once
circumstances have changed and made it safe for
them to do so.

Zombrex

smccarrick wrote:

Unfortunately the 61,000 figure is correct.
It is the accepted figure by the refugee council of the number of refugees claiming asylum status to have entered the country since January 1993 to April of this year.

Wow I though Arcade had just read the EU reports wrong (61,000 is also the number of applicants to the UK in 2003), but if this is what he meant then it is even more ridiculous. 61,000 applications in ten years! OMG close the gates!!!

It also says - "At the end of 2003 there were fifty eight direct-provision accommodation centres accommodating 5,994 asylum-seekers"

My reading of that is that at the end of 2003 there were a total of 5,994 asylum-seekers in Ireland. 6,000. So there is only 10% of the 61,000 still classified as asylum-seekers. The rest have either been accepted as refugees or have not been. If they have not been they cannot legally work or claim benefits in Ireland.

And as Arcade has (rather foolishly for his position) pointed out average 93% of applications are rejected. So based on that (and I know this isn't accurate) there have been approx. 4,270 refugees granted asylum in Ireland in ten years. 4,000! That is 0.1% of the total population of Ireland (yes, one tenth of a percent!).

So what exactly are you terrified of again Arcade?

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

So what exactly are you terrified of again Arcade?

Competent mathematicians?

ionapaul

Wicknight wrote:

And as Arcade has (rather foolishly for his position) pointed out average 93% of applications are rejected. So based on that (and I know this isn't accurate) there have been approx. 4,270 refugees granted asylum in Ireland in ten years. 4,000! That is 0.1% of the total population of Ireland (yes, one tenth of a percent!).

Close the gates - we're full!

Or do we live in one of the most sparsely populated, overwhelmingly homogeneous countries in Europe? I never can remember...*

*memory loss must be result of centuries of inbreeding with the rest of 'my people'

ecksor

bonkey wrote:

Competent mathematicians?

At least the innumeracy is consistent with the defense of the pyramid scams.

lucernarian

My two cents- Anyone who links patriotism with discrimination on ethnic culture grounds is simply a Nazi/Fascist. There is not a more apt word out there. How dare anyone suggest that children who are born to foerign parents are of less worth to us than our own children. What gives anyone the right to discriminate against a harmless child?

BuffyBot

What gives anyone the right to discriminate against a harmless child?

Have you not got it yet? [sarcastic whisper] It's because they are foreign..and different [/sarcastic whisper]

lucernarian

We were misled by the Government, especially by Herr Flick. "Common Sense Citizenship"? It sounds like the tactics the Nazis used to ailenate the Jews.

arcadegame2004

If you really wanted to throw another spanner in the calculations- the second largest group of asylum seekers are from Roumania. As an accession state to the EU, they are EU citizens in their own right, and no longer entitled to apply for refugee status here. All applications being processed were summarily dismissed in April- numbering thousands...... That knocks a few more off the figure, but of course it doesn't suit them to acknowledge this........

Romania is NOT an EU state. Neither is Bulgaria. Both have applied to join and may do so in 2007. Same with Bulgaria.


But thank you SMCarrick for confirming the accuracy of my numbers of asylum-seekers.

The fact that some came from countries applying to join the EU just emphasises the sillyness of their claims for asylum in the first place.

Bonkey, you ask me to substantiate my claims that a genuine asylum-seeker is one fleeing the conditions I referred to. I respond that the exit-poll provides evidence. You, however, seem to reject the notion that this is strong evidence. But this thread is supposed to be debating the aftermath of the Citizenship-referendum, so I would have thought such an exit-poll was relevant to that. But apart from it, I feel that the ordinary man and woman on the street feel that most of the asylum-seekers are pretending to be fleeing conditions of danger, when they are actually looking for a better life in the West. Even if you were to concede the point that they should be allowed to do so, the question is why then they need to come to Ireland to fulfill this?

My two cents- Anyone who links patriotism with discrimination on ethnic culture grounds is simply a Nazi/Fascist. There is not a more apt word out there. How dare anyone suggest that children who are born to foerign parents are of less worth to us than our own children. What gives anyone the right to discriminate against a harmless child?

So refusing to allow billions of children in the Third World to have Irish citizenship is "Nazi/Fascist"? Then so is the rest of the world.

I somehow doubt that the real Nazis would have stopped at simply denying immigrants citizenship, so I find that argument ludicrous. :rolleyes: