The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But their child hasn't even been born at the time they leave Nigeria

How do you know it wasn't concived before that time? Please post proof. We already know they weren't born in Nigeria. That fact is a given.

"Proof"? Do you seriously expect citizenship-tourists to stand up and say "By the way, I have something to tell you. I only had the baby so I could get citizenship for my child and possibly strengthen my chances of staying in Ireland"?

No, I am asking you to prove your assertion that pregent women are only coming here to abuse the system, when it has been shown that being pregnant has no effect on the system.

You have no proof, you are just claiming they are abusing the system.

Why would they? The US is far richer than us. Why would Americans want to seek legal loopholes to stay here?

Still a racist comment. I wonder how many countries you have actually been to or lived in? I suspect few. I've lived in the US, while it is far richer a lot of people there live a lot poorer then in other countries. Then some fall in love with thier "homeland they came from" and abuse the rules to stay here.

Typedef

Here's the thing arcadegame2004.

The links you have posted are obviously the result of some sort of google search for "citizenship tourist Ireland Nigeria" or words to that effect.

You have offered _no_ corroborative evidence to support the positions, you outlined earlier and have _not_ in any way backed up the sweeping statements you made about Asylum Seekers, the 'figures' you quoted as regards them and have asserted that you think (essentially) Ireland "shouldn't" shoulder the load of refugee influx into the EU, with our European partners.

I think the 'lack' of substanciation on your part, to corroborate your stated figures, 'proves' you made those figures up, and since the 'statistics' you have provided have 'proved' to be patently false.

You have taken the word of a sensationalist headline and tried to pass it off as evidence for facts and figures you have posted, for sweeping assertions you have made and since the links _don't_ support your statements, the only possible rational conclusion is that you simply 'invented' evidence to fit your arguments, evidence, which clearly _doesn't_ exist, because you can't back it up in the least.

Therefore the only possible conclusion is that you have a personal hatred of foreigners, refugees and particularly Nigerians, and that despite being ignorant of the acutal facts, you'd rather pass off have truths and innuendo, then go and investigate the facts.

So while that may not make you racist... it does make you prejudiced, and that prejudice seems to be based almost entirely on the ethnicity and origin of the people in question. Racist? I can't say for sure. Ethnically if not racially prejudiced? It certainly seems that way to me.

Your figures of 61,000 Asylum seekers is a non issue for me, my response to that figure, be it true or false is, "so what"? I live in Dublin City Centre where the 'majority' of foreign migrants (in this context) to date live and _I_ don't mind their presence. Perhaps you'd be so good as to tell us where it is _you_ live? I don't feel swamped by foreigners, and I suspect the area I live in probably, in fact, almost definately has the highest proportion of non-nationals to nationals in the country.

Your figures about the number of non-nationals giving birth in Irish hospitals, is challenged by what is regarded as the most reputable paper in the country.

In effect your entire 'argument' is exposed as unfounded vitriol.

How do you respond?

Elmo

I haven't read all of the posts on this tread; I have to say I have being avoiding this politics section of boards since before the Ref.

Mainly because I am sure what most of you would say would anger me.

I personally am discussed at the Irish people for not only voting for this change in the constitution, but also allowing this Government have more power.

I hope since most of you voted for this change in the constitution so that we may be more aligned with the rest of Europe that when a referendum for abortion or neutrality comes about that you will vote YES.

I personally would like to know how the hospitals are after this change? I haven't heard anything but I am sure that the situation remains that women and babies are being treated just as badly as before, and that if the government could put in place waiting list for Women to have babies they would. This government would not mind if a woman went pregnant for 18 months, it would save them having to pay her Child allowance etc.

As for those of you who did vote Yes, let me just remind you (that is if you already new)


Éamonn De Valera was an American not because his father was American (He was spainish) not because his mother was American (She was Irish) but because He was born in America. (As have so many other Irish American Children).

Imagine if Éamonn De Valera had not been given his Citizenship, he would have be executed with the other 1916 Easter Rising Martyrs,

Eamonn O Cuiv would not exist,
Sile De Valera would not exist,
the FF a party would not exist,
the FG party would not exist,
the PDs would not exist
and there would only be two major parties in Ireland Sinn Fein and Labour.

So I cannot say I am proud to be Irish.

It was a law that I personnel was proud of.

Thank you.

Typedef

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Someone from the Third World is a different story however, except for the fact that they should be staying put in the first EU state they enter

While that may be your opinion, it is not the predicated opinion of most of the countries in the EU. Ireland is obligation bound to share, the burdon with our EU partners, we are an extremely wealthy nation, wealthier then most of the countries in the EU as it stands today, we have a flourishing economy and to blithely insist that we can reap the rewards of EU membership, without sharing the responsibility would diminish this nation, to _takers_.
Ironically, accusing the Refugee (as if you were clairvoyant), of simply being a _taker_ also seems to be wasted on you.

Why should Ireland take all the benefit from EU membership, without contributing something back... wouldn't that make the Irish, as bad, if not worse then the alleged welfare-refugee swindler?

You've also stated that most of the refugees coming to Ireland have passed through, the UK. Can you possibly 'back that up'?

Again you are making claims, passing it off as proof and providing no objective evidence. Sensationalist headlines from a random paper can have sexed up numbers, as is obviously the case where the Irish Times figures contradict the Irish Examiner figures posted earlier. In this light, can you quote a government agency or independant body, which can give accurate stats on 'how many' countries passed through and which countries were passed through, for a particular percentage of the people seeking asylum in Ireland?

However, why in the world would a so called welfare swindler 'wish' to leave Britain at all? The UK has hundreds of years of affluence underpining it's society and is in real terms much more cash rich then Ireland and while there probably was abuse of the citizenship situation in Ireland, I think that the attitude which passed the ammendment is _clear_ in the utter presumption, ignorance and intolerance which has come through in your posts.

Again, how do you respond?

arcadegame2004

That does not stand up because their our poor people in every country. America has 7.2 families below the poverty line. But we let them pretty much freely into our country, on holiday. And you raise no objection.

But even America's poor would be not badly off compared to many Western Europeans. The average wage in the US is around $38,000, compared to $26,000 in Ireland. So given the definition of poverty adopted by the UN of "half the average wage or less", that would make the poverty-line in the US around $19,000. A huge number of taxpayers in this country are earning that, and would not be considered "poor".

magine if Éamonn De Valera had not been given his Citzenship, he would have be executed with the other 1916 easter Rising Marters, Eamonn O Cuiv would not exist, Sile De Valera would not Exist, the finna fail a party would not exist, the fine gael party would not exist, the PD would not exist no there would only be two major parties in Ireland Sinn Fein and Labour.

While obviously I am glad he wasn't executed,I personally feel that Irish independence would still have been achieved, though maybe we would have avoided the Civil War, and Michael Collins would have become our first Taoiseach (or President of the Executive Council as it was then). Undoubtedly, De Valera achieved much, but he should not be above criticism. The Civil War did not exactly help persuade the Unionists to join a United Ireland.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But even America's poor would be not badly off compared to many Western Europeans. The average wage in the US is around $38,000, compared to $26,000 in Ireland. So given the definition of poverty adopted by the UN of "half the average wage or less", that would make the poverty-line in the US around $19,000. A huge number of taxpayers in this country are earning that, and would not be considered "poor".

Actually- the US figures are $9,393 for a single person or $18,810 for a family of 4. The US use their own manner of measuring poverty- not a UN methodology.

Even by these draconian standards- this means that 36 million people are officially living in poverty in the US- some 12.54% of the population. In addition, a further 9 million have no primary healthcare of any nature whatsoever.

Source: US Cencus data

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html

Please stop talking ****e- look up your facts and figures before you quote them as hard facts. As you can see- the information you quoted is utter and total bull****.

S.

arcadegame2004

SmCarrick are you sure you voted "Yes" in the referendum? If you did then you must agree with at least some of my points in favour of a "Yes" vote, unless there is some other reason for voting Yes that I haven't heard of. Be aware, by the way, that as a yes voter you fall, as do I, into the category of people that a number of posters here are describing as "racist" etc.

The_Conductor

I voted yes, because, among other reasons, as a civil servant, I recognise the need for legislative integrity, and considered the situation as it stood, to impinge on the legislative integrity of another EU member.

I explained this in a previous posting.

I do not consider myself racist, and am indeed am probably one of the only people on this thread to have lived in some of the countries alluded to, for substantial periods of time. As such, regardless of the manner in which I voted, I believe the integrity of my position to be sound, and not contradictory/racist/facist. No-one on this thread is calling me racist or facist- because I can produce a balanced argument on this issue (among others), and I do not resort to hearsay, fiction or mythology to illustrate my case.

I think your arguments have been grossly unfair, churlish, racist and borderline facist in places. You have repeatedly misrepresented hearsay as fact, and resorted when under pressure- to attempts to appeal to peoples basest instincts. Despite the untenable arguments you have attempted to propogate, people are, thankfully, much more reasonable and balanced than you give them credit for.

I resent your accusation that I am racist, challenge you to show me a single example of my being accused of racism (in this or any other forum, boards or not), and request you withdraw that defamatory remark.

S.

S.

The_Conductor

Ps- a further link of possible interest to you- re: poverty in the US-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3602874.stm

Elmo

While obviously I am glad he wasn't executed,I personally feel that Irish independence would still have been achieved, though maybe we would have avoided the Civil War, and Michael Collins would have become our first Taoiseach (or President of the Executive Council as it was then). Undoubtedly, De Valera achieved much, but he should not be above criticism. The Civil War did not exactly help persuade the Unionists to join a United Ireland.

It is unlikely that a civil war would not have occured as most countries who have left British rule general have a civil war after freedom. India, Ireland and the USA.

It is unlikely that Michael Collins would have become our first Taoiseach as he was not even leader of the Cumann Na nGealhead party that when into power after the Civil War. (Or leader of the sinn fein party, If Eamonn hadn't been around it would have be Cathal Brugha)

It would have been also unlikely that he would have become the first President of Ireland as it was until 1949 when we actally got a presient and since the Treaty was a steping stone and we have yet to clime the mountain that is Unity it is unlikely that we would have ever left the Commonwealth.

You also have to remember that Michael Collins Decide when signing the treaty that rather then going to war with the British (which we where already in) he dicide to take British guns and point them at his own people.

But this is like one of those IF shows that the BBC does and you must remember that it was Eamonn De Valera that Wrote much of our consitution in 1932.

So while this post is of the topic, if Eamonn De Valera was executed we would probable be discussing British wins at the Olymics today.

Its like an episode of IF.

Both men should not be above critism.
Collins should not have trusted the british when signing the treaty as the British had on so many occasions made sure that Home Rule was put on the back boiler.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But even America's poor would be not badly off compared to many Western Europeans. The average wage in the US is around $38,000, compared to $26,000 in Ireland. So given the definition of poverty adopted by the UN of "half the average wage or less", that would make the poverty-line in the US around $19,000. A huge number of taxpayers in this country are earning that, and would not be considered "poor".

What? :rolleyes:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950511/poverty.shtml
"The current poverty line, developed in the early 1960s, is considered to be the minimum dollar amount needed for individuals, couples or families to purchase food and meet other basic needs."

Being under the poverty line means you do not have enough money to meet your basic needs. Aside from the fact that your statistics about the poverty line in the US is completely wrong (as has been pointed out) it doesn't matter if the money you have could sustain you in another country. There are a huge number of homeless people on the street in Dublin who would not be considered "poor" by Nigerian standards.

So I ask you again why are you up in arms when Nigerians or people from other "poor third world" countries come to Ireland, and yet you seem to have no objects when Americans come over, despite the fact that 36.9 million Americans live below the standard need to meet their basic needs.

Why are poor Nigerians more likely to break our laws and attempt to stay in the country illegal that poor Americans are? Why do you focus your campaign on asylum-seekers instead of the much much high number of American migrant workers or people here on holiday visas. Do none of these people abuse our system in any way?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Undoubtedly, De Valera achieved much, but he should not be above criticism

I think the point that was being made was that under a system like the new constitution ammendment you support, De Valera would have been citizenship-less, refused an American passport because neither of his parents were American citizens and eventually would have been shot as a result of this.

Is making the mistake of being born without citizenship something you would have criticised about DeValera.

lucernarian

For my part, I would like to clarify that IMO a Nazi/Fascist is someone who believes that their ethnic culture is superior to another ethnic culture(s). Also IMO, this would encompass any beliefs that any people or descendants of people of a certain ethnic culture are less worthy to recieve the same treatment as themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do feel that DeValera should not be above criticism for various reasons. I also think that Michael Collins was not aware that his decision would start a civil war but that is outside the scope of this thread.

bobbyjoe

There's an interview with Herr McDowell in metro eireann newspaper it has some figures which might be of interest to this thread. This is 1999 to date.

There are currently 8,130 applications for citizenship.
6,963 are for naturalisation:
"Naturalisation
An applicant for a certificate of naturalisation has to fulfil certain statutory conditions including having a total of five years residence in the State in the nine year period preceding the date of the application, the last year being a period of continuous residence."

1,167 are for post-nuptial citizenship
"post-nuptial citizenship"
A non-national married to a person who is an Irish citizen (otherwise than by naturalisation, honorary citizenship or post-nuptial citizenship) may accept Irish citizenship as post-nuptial citizenship by lodging a declaration.

Post-nuptial includes declarations of citizenship from persons resident outside Ireland. How many fall into this category is not known.

The majority of natuarlised (been here for at least 5 years) asylum seekers who apply for citizenship are dealt with within 18 months to 2 years and get it. The minister has discretion and can say no without the need for a court case if he believes the person has links to terrorism.

There are 420 public servants working in the area of asylum seeking. McDowell believes it is understaffed. Many people are waiting two years without getting a decision.

McDowell intends to bring legislation in line with the change in the constitution in September (not long to wait Arcadegame!!!) after takeing into account any views of the political parties, NGO's and immigrant groups, would have been a good idea before the referendum perhaps?


There are 50,000 undocumented Irish in the US.

Also a Nigerian is representing Ireland in the Mr Universe power-lifting competition in Manchester. But only after getting special discompensation from the Department of Justice to allow him to go.

arcadegame2004

I resent your accusation that I am racist

SmCarrick, I am NOT saying you are racist. I am saying that considering that a number of those on this thread have openly said that anyone who voted "Yes" is a racist, that you too are being accused of it, like me.

With all due respect, I consider your justification for voting "Yes" to be too vague. You must know that the system was being abused. Otherwise, talking about the need for "integrity" is just using sophistry for fear of getting into an argument with the pinko-brigade. And I doubt that even that will save you from the all-encompassing condemnation of some of the No's on this forum who insist, outrageously, that ALL who voted yes are "racist".

I make no apology for not hiding behind fine words when arguing my case. I say things as I feel they are, because if I don't, I am not being completely upfront about the things that motivate my vote. I am consoled that a majority supported by pro-change citizenship-law position, however.

Could we please stop the Nazi references to members of our Government aswell please. I don't believe that McDowell is planning to round up the Jews, Blacks etc. for extermination. Such hysteria only harms the case of those making the Nazi connections.

Carpo

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't believe that McDowell is planning to round up the Jews, Blacks etc. for extermination.

Neither did the Nazi's until 1941. Before then they just wanted to 'deport' them so Germany would be for the Germans.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

SmCarrick, I am NOT saying you are racist. I am saying that considering that a number of those on this thread have openly said that anyone who voted "Yes" is a racist, that you too are being accused of it, like me.

Nice try, but it is only you being accused. I didn't see anyone else who voted yes being called racist.

You must know that the system was being abused.

Your amazing. You have posted absolutly no proof of this beyond a couple of news papers stories from the same source which list no figures or further sources to research. Hows about actual statistics from a reconised body? Oh wait you can't because people have already posted them and it shows you are wrong.

bonkey

Typedef wrote:

Here's the thing arcadegame2004.

The links you have posted are obviously the result of some sort of google search for "citizenship tourist Ireland Nigeria" or words to that effect.

No - they're not.

From memory, they were newspaper articles around (or shortly before) the announcement of the referendum, and were the main backbone for people like arcade to try an convince us all that the referendum was necessary back when this all started.

I could be wrong, but I'd swear most, if not all of them have been posted in the various referenda threads previously, and also that the accuracy of them has been called into question - both in the public media subsequent to their publication and here in-forum.

You have taken the word of a sensationalist headline and tried to pass it off as evidence for facts and figures you have posted, for sweeping assertions you have made and since the links _don't_ support your statements, the only possible rational conclusion is that you simply 'invented' evidence to fit your arguments, evidence, which clearly _doesn't_ exist, because you can't back it up in the least.

Hold on a sec. He was asked by gandalf to prove that these newspaper articles existed. He's done just that. Lets not confuse issues here. These articles were posted because he was told to back up the assertion that they existed.

You're dead right though...other than as proof that there were newspaper articles telling us about the problems caused by Nigerian women, the articles are essentially worthless, being a mix of sensationalism and (surprise surprise) more fine examples of abuse and misrepresentation of actual figures.

So while that may not make you racist... it does make you prejudiced, and that prejudice seems to be based almost entirely on the ethnicity and origin of the people in question. Racist? I can't say for sure. Ethnically if not racially prejudiced? It certainly seems that way to me.

Type - you know the score as well as anyone. Attack the post, not the poster. If you think its a racist argument, fine....but that makes it a racist argument...not an argument presented by a racist.

Same applies for the rest of the ppl throwing comments like "fascist", "racist" and so on around....as well as those who mistakenly feel it is not an abuse of the rules to refer to those with an opposite position as a collective and be equally insulting about them as a whole (so you're not insulting an individual...just the group they belong to).

Your figures about the number of non-nationals giving birth in Irish hospitals, is challenged by what is regarded as the most reputable paper in the country.

Equating "non-nationals" with "asylum seekers" is a far greater sin in my eyes.

jc

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Your amazing. You have posted absolutly no proof of this beyond a couple of news papers stories from the same source which list no figures or further sources to research. Hows about actual statistics from a reconised body? Oh wait you can't because people have already posted them and it shows you are wrong.

Well, to be fair Hobbes, its almost inconceivable that the system was not being abused. The pertinent questions are :

1) To what extent was the system being abused
2) Was a constitutional amendment really required to stem the abuse
and
3) Was this particular constitutional amendment really required to stem the abuse.

Question 2 is - for me - the salient one. You pointed out that mothers were not being given an automatic right to remain in the country subsequent to giving birth. Arcade's response was that pre-93 they were allowed stay. But that immediately implies that the government had implemented legislation to deal with that particular issue.

Now, the truth of the matter is that the legislation didn't have a massive impact. Why not? Because the legislation wasn't being sufficiently enforced, just like most of the legislation we had previously.

And this is the problem that the government ultimately faced. They knew there were problems with our asylum-seeking system. They didn't, however, want to admit that the problems were organisational, because then it would have been the government's fault and/or responsibility. So instead, they blamed the asylum seekers, and set about "fixing" that problem.

And what was the fix? Well, for a start, it involved disregarding any distinction between asylum seekers and :

1) Legal migrant workers with work permits who we basically invited here
2) Legal refugees (asylum seekers granted asylum)
3) Illegal refugees (those who do not declare, or who were refused but not deported)
4) Any other non-national of any description, such as holiday makers, etc.

Lump all of those together, and you start getting "real" numbers - a "real problem" (on paper) which needs to be dealt with.

But why are the immigrants we invited here a problem?
Why are the Legal refugees a problem?
Why are the illegal refugees a problem of anything other than the non-functioning of the existing system?

And this is the real problem. The "citizenship shopping" figures work out to be little more than one child a day, if I recall correctly (400 and something per year?). Not one child, two parents, and an entire extended family. One child. Lets err on the side of caution, and say that my figure is too low...so we'll say three children per day.

Thats a thousand a year - give or take. And they're children...we don't know how many will survive to adulthood, or how many will choose to remain in (or return to) Ireland. We don't know how many will integrate fully and - other than their ethnic origin - be as Irish as the rest of us (hands up who thinks Paul McGrath isn't really Irish?).

And yet arcade has spent half this thread (not intended to be statistcally accurate) and others telling us the change was necessary or we'd be outnumbered in our own country....these 1,000 a year would overrun us and turn us into a minority.

Yes, you can look at the broader picture and point out that its not the 1000 a year, but rather the "threat" from the children of every non-national family which are born in Ireland....which will include the immigrants, those ilegally here, and so on.....

But if thats the case, then why did the governemnt use the "problem" of citizenship shopping as the primary reason for the need for a referendum? Why do we constantly get reminded of these Nigerian women coming here to abuse our system? If they're not the main cause of the problem, then who is?

Well...I don't have figures to hand, but I would guess that the largest number of children born to non-nationals is from the immigrants - the people we give work permits to and invite here to work because we need them. But how are you gonna sell that one? No-one's gonna stand up and say "yes, I know we need them to make us rich, and to help our economy keep u pits strength cause we've more work than resources....but they're still a problem in terms of being foreigners in our country and if they have kids we'll never get rid of said kids (even if we can get rid of the parents)".

And do you know what cracks me up? Listening to arcadegame and others go on about how these foreigners don't integrate, whilst advocating a system which is designed to alienate them and make them feel unwanted. We are sending a message to these people that while we'll use them to make money, and we'll let them live in our country while we can make use of them, their descendants aren't welcome. On the other hand, we will accept as being Irish without question the descendants of expats - descendants who may never have set foot in this country...and their kids, and so on. That type of foreigner is aparently fine...but those damned immigrants and asylum-seekers......those we need to deal with.

Ultimately, I believe the referendum was designed to divert attention away from critical failing's in the government's handling of the entire asylum-seeking issue. The slowness at which the government are setting about implementing the laws only goes to show this.....if the problem was so damned critical, what on earth are they dragging their heels in implementing the changes for? They had the draft legislation ready to rock before the referendum, and it was a pressing issue (which is why the referendum had to be called at such short notice)....so what is the holdup???

Personally.....I believe the holdup is that the government knows that implementing this legal change will not have a significant impact on the number of asylum claims. It will not resolve much of the issue of ppl coming here for free medical assistance when having children. It will not deal with the problem of ppl continuing to remain in Ireland after being refused asylum, nor will it have a significant impact on the need to house the seekers.

In short....the holdup is to prevent people realising what a red herring it all was until the right moment. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole thing rolled out in the leadup to an election, but sufficiently close to it that no figures will be available to show its success/failure until after the election.

jc

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
And this is the real problem. The "citizenship shopping" figures work out to be little more than one child a day, if I recall correctly (400 and something per year?). Not one child, two parents, and an entire extended family. One child. Lets err on the side of caution, and say that my figure is too low...so we'll say three children per day.

I do not accept the 400 figure because it was pointed out at the time that it refers only to Dublin hospitals. Or are you implying that all children of asylum-seekers are born in Dublin?

I recall that being implied in the referendum campaign by the No side, e.g. Michael D.Higgins standing up in the Dail and implying we were talking only about 250 or so.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I do not accept the 400 figure because it was pointed out at the time that it refers only to Dublin hospitals. Or are you implying that all children of asylum-seekers are born in Dublin?

I recall that being implied in the referendum campaign by the No side, e.g. Michael D.Higgins standing up in the Dail and implying we were talking only about 250 or so.

The figure being quoted was provided by the Master of the National Maternity Hospital- it is he who stated that 422 children were born to non-nationals (and please note: this includes every non-national birth in the National Maternity hospital- not solely those to asylum seekers.

That is the genesis of the figure quoted.

Arcadegame- just how many of them were down in Waterford do you think?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I do not accept the 400 figure because it was pointed out at the time that it refers only to Dublin hospitals. Or are you implying that all children of asylum-seekers are born in Dublin?

See the bit in my maths where I multiplied my estimates by a factor of about 3? Do you seriously believe that less than 1/3 of them are born in Dublin?

I've taken the available figures, which included the hospitals that were the ones suppoesdly highlighting the problem, and shown that its no major deal in terms of numbers. I've allowed a factor of approximately 3 in order to cater for the unknowns.

I have - at least - made an effort to acknowledge the incompleteness of the figures I have taken, and applied what I think are more-then-reasonable adjustments (i.e. not favouring my argument) and still come up with a set of numbers which are so low that they make a huge amount of your arguments seem nothing but scaremongering.

Furthermore, the articles that you list do not break the figures down into "legally allowed in the country", "not legally allowed in the country" and "final status pending". Instead, it just decides that the problem is the overall total. Well, hang on a sec, but when ppl on this thread start going on about how they themselves (i.e. the poster) are not Irish but living legally in Ireland, and how this effects them and/or their kids, you come out with platitudes about how legislation will most probably cater for ppl in this situation....but you then don't bother to even acknowledge that the same has to be applied to the Nigerian women giving birth. If they're legally living here, and have been for some time, then their kids will be given citizenship through legislation anyway.

And thats the crux : You acknowledge that we should allow immigrants into the country as needed, but then fail to acknowledge the impact those immigrants have on the figures you present.

You argue against giving ppl asylum on the apparently-seperate argument that its just not our job to give asylum to someone who has come a long distance to get here, because they could have sought it en route....but still don't acknowledge that whether or not we give asylum, those we give asylum to cannot be considered part of the problem because we have already found that they have a genuine reason to stay in the country and once again, the legislation that will "probably" take care of some ppl will equally probably take care of these.

You appear to assume that every single one of the non-Eu-national births (or a very high proportion of them) are by ppl trying to abuse the system, and don't make any allowances for the fact that legislatively ro constitutionally the birth of a child did not give the parents any right of residence, nor for the fact that some of the ppl will not remain in Ireland.

Hell, arcadegame...you haven't even subtracted the percentage of births that one could normally assume for a population.

I attempted to adjust my figures for their shortcomings. If you want to criticise me for not doing that sufficiently, then at least apply the same standards you ask of me to yourself.

jc

Elmo

The figure being quoted was provided by the Master of the National Maternity Hospital- it is he who stated that 422 children were born to non-nationals (and please note: this includes every non-national birth in the National Maternity hospital- not solely those to asylum seekers.

Two questions:-

1. Does the figure of 422 include all of the babies born to mothers from
a. each of the 10 new countries of the EU
b. all other 1st world countries (Such as USA, Canada etc)
c. each of the 14 other old countries of the EU?

2. What are the current figures like?

The_Conductor

Elmo wrote:

Two questions:-

1. Does the figure of 422 include all of the babies born to mothers from
a. each of the 10 new countries of the EU
b. all other 1st world countries (Such as USA, Canada etc)
c. each of the 14 other old countries of the EU?

2. What are the current figures like?

1. Yes- All non-nationals.

2. -Short of lobbing in an FOI request, the current figure is unavailable. The previous figure was delibertly put into the public domain for obvious reasons. Normally the figures are released about 3 years in arrears.

Elmo

1. Yes- All non-nationals.

Well Mr. McDowell and the PDs and FF will never get my vote. Ever.

We had so little time to even think.

I personnally don't like Mr. McDowell.

omnicorp

How effing FF got any votes after so many broken promises beats me.
There must be some very gullible people out there...

ionapaul

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To those (I think it was Mr_Pudding but I'm not sure) who ask me for statistical evidence that such women come here pregnant with citizenship in mind, I reply that they are hardly going to admit to it! Get real a chara.

And yet you have repeated asserted that the exit-poll (showing that the Yes voters did not base their decision on racist prejudices) should be taken at face value. Even if voters were asked did they vote Yes because they 'hate seeing the darkies swagger down O'Connell St with wads of taxpayers' cash', would anyone have picked this choice?

I maintain that a sizeable minority (at the very least) of Yes voters based their decision on their prejudices and racist beliefs - but can we expect them to come out and admit it...? 'Get real a chara'

lucernarian

Bonkey, in case im being accused of anything, I will clarify that I never called or implied that anyone was a fascist. I explaind what I felt qualified a fascist and it did not include "voting yes in the last referendum".

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

I maintain that a sizeable minority (at the very least) of Yes voters based their decision on their prejudices and racist beliefs - but can we expect them to come out and admit it...? 'Get real a chara'

The vast majority voted "yes" because the Yes Campaign did a very good job at making the question -

Do you want to stop illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers getting citizenship simply by abusing the system and being born here
Yes or No


Based on that, most people voted yes. They neither realised or probably cared that that wasn't what they were voting for, they were voting for a fundamental change of the constitution definition of an Irish citizen

People like Arcade managed to make the referendum solely about illegal asylum-seekers who abuse the system. And has been point out, there are about 50 of them. We really needed that consitutional referendum :rolleyes:

bonkey

smccarrick wrote:

1. Yes- All non-nationals.

No. All non-EU (based on the EU at the time, which was pre-expansion) nationals who had not booked in advance.

The italicised part is relevant, because the fuss that was actually made by the hospitals to the minister was concerning the number of unbooked birth procedures (if memory serves), which was translated by our wonderful minister to be a problem with asylum-seekers.

This is why the figure 422 was reelvant. It was the number of births from outside the EU who contributed to the issue which was reported to the minister which was then used as the prima facia (sp?) reason for needing a referendum so urgently to keep these 422 people a year from overwhelming our hospitals.

Over time, this got translated into the need for a referendum to resolve the general "citizenship shopping" issue, which is how it was sold to the public - as a referendum which purely and solely resolved an impending (or not already occurring) crisis caused by these "hordes" (basically wot Wicknight just said). Moving forward, one can look at the alacrity with which the government has moved on being given permission to deal with this issue as evidence of just how critical and urgent it really was.

And the timing - to coincide with other elections - was purely co-incidental. It was urgent, and there happened to be an election coming up. Honest.

Ever feel had?

jc

arcadegame2004

Elmo wrote:

Two questions:-

1. Does the figure of 422 include all of the babies born to mothers from
a. each of the 10 new countries of the EU
b. all other 1st world countries (Such as USA, Canada etc)
c. each of the 14 other old countries of the EU?

2. What are the current figures like?

Actually, figures released and quoted by Pat Rabbitte after the Citizenship-referendum revealed that in 2003, 1,500 Nigerians and 400 Romanians gave birth in Irish hospitals. Now chances are, especially in the case of Nigerians, that these were asylum-seekers. And that doesn't even include other nationalities. I remain convinced that the number is far more than 400.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Actually, figures released and quoted by Pat Rabbitte after the Citizenship-referendum revealed that in 2003, 1,500 Nigerians and 400 Romanians gave birth in Irish hospitals.

Now chances are, especially in the case of Nigerians, that these were asylum-seekers.

There's no reason why Mr. Rabbitte couldn't have specified how many were. There's also no reason why he couldn't specify how many of those asylum seekers were subsequently granted asylum and should therefore also not be taken into account.

Call me suspicious, but when an official makes a statement to that effect, and leaves out pertinent information, its generally because he's deliberately going for impact over accuracy. The only other option I can see is that he actually doesn't understand the figures he's using..

And that doesn't even include other nationalities. I remain convinced that the number is far more than 400.

My math was based of a value of 1,000. Lets assume I'm 50% too low - taht every one of those Nigerians and Romanians were trying to citizenshop, and that there were another 100 to boot. Hell...lets say it was 2,500 per year....thats giving us another 600 - a number larger than the group of Romanians he listed, so I think we're on safe ground.

That is a grand total of 2,500 children per year with an entitlement to stay in the state. The biggest problem that could conceivably cause us is to put strain on our social services in looking after them, if every single parent abandoned them here to State care. Realistically, that ain't gonna happen.

Compare this figure - 2,500 children - to the 61,000 you were throwing around a while ago as being a terribly relevant number, and the 1,000 I was guesstimating. Which is somewhat closer to the probably reality, and which is simply a ridiculous abuse of numbers for - as I said - impact over reality ???

I'll leave it up to you to decide.

jc

arcadegame2004

Compare this figure - 2,500 children - to the 61,000 you were throwing around a while ago as being a terribly relevant number, and the 1,000 I was guesstimating. Which is somewhat closer to the probably reality, and which is simply a ridiculous abuse of numbers for - as I said - impact over reality ???

The figure of numbers becoming a burden on the State rises a lot when you consider both parents possibly being allowed to stay, as was the case with Chen. Also, although the Chen ruling made reference to her means to support herself, it is unclear what would have happened had she not had those means.

ecksor

I may be completely wrong here, but I thought the ruling of the Chen case was that she could stay in any EU country apart from Ireland and only if she wasn't a financial burden on that state. I.e, it's entirely clear what would have happened if she hadn't had those means and it's not particularly relevant to this debate at all. Did I misunderstand that?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The figure of numbers becoming a burden on the State rises a lot when you consider both parents possibly being allowed to stay,

Which they have no legal right to purely for being parents of an Irish citizen.

as was the case with Chen.

Of, for f.....

Also, although the Chen ruling made reference to her means to support herself, it is unclear what would have happened had she not had those means.

No.
Its not unclear.
For the umpteenth time since you started mentioning Chen, I find myself having to ask again : would you please, for the love of whatever it is you hold dear, go and read the fscking ruling.

PLEASE.

Going back and reading any of the myriad of posts where it was explained to you would also suffice.

Going back and reading the further posts which explained to you why the Chen case isn't even applicable in most cases you're discussing would also be a help.

This issue is not in question, arcadegame, except by those who seek to misrepresent the case.....and yet again, this is you bringing up a point which has been addressed numerous times (I'd say dozens, but you might count it and find its less than 24) where you have never once bothered to respond to any of the criticisms other than to insist that its still a threat.

To anyone else reading this...

If this is the level of honest argument we can expect for the "it was and is correct" side, then as I said earlier...

Ever feel had?

jc

bonkey

ecksor wrote:

I may be completely wrong here, but I thought the ruling of the Chen case was that she could stay in any EU country apart from Ireland and only if she wasn't a financial burden on that state. I.e, it's entirely clear what would have happened if she hadn't had those means and it's not particularly relevant to this debate at all. Did I misunderstand that?

No...you didn'tarcade's just in denial or something, and assuming that if it wasn't explicitly stated by the judge that "had Ms. Chen been unable to give us these assurances, we'd have told her to hoppit", then maybe thats not what he actually meant when he declared that the intention of the rules was to allow freedom of movement to those would not be a burden of the state they wished to reside in, and as Ms Chen could supply the assurances that she wouldn't be a burden so then the rule should allow her the freedom of movement.

It wasn't unclear at all. The only peopel who claimed it was in any way unclear were the government's pro-referendum lobby, and their slavish adherents who stick to regurgitating the politicians propaganda.

jc

The_Conductor

An interesting report on topic of discussion.

Note: its quite big, a little over 1.5Mb

http://www.childrensrights.ie/pubs/Report.doc

S.

bonkey

To be more specific, to anyone who hasn't read the judgement or any of the analysis on it, the situation was this :

Chen used a bit of slight of hand. She was listed as a dependant of her own child, with the child able to supply sufficient assurances (including supplying medical insurance) for both.

This was the requirement under EU law :namely that EU citizens and their dependant family have the right of freedom of movement within the EU as long as they are self-sufficient (including medical insurance).

However, the AG found that the mother cannot rightly be listed as a dependant of the child, especially when the child's access to independant means come (at least in part) from the mother's business.

However, he said htat the intention of the rule which Chen had sought her residency under was to allow EU members who would not be a burden on wherever they resided and their family freedom of movement.

It is abundantly clear. The only loophole it opens is that we could be overrun by rich citizenship shoppers who want to live in the EU and choose Ireland as the place. They cannot however become a burden on the state, as they would lose their right of residency were they to do so.

jc

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

as was the case with Chen. Also, although the Chen ruling made reference to her means to support herself, it is unclear what would have happened had she not had those means.

Liar.[1]


Anyone who's had to be bluntly and explicitly corrected numerous times on a single relatively-easy-to-understand case as you have been is obviously making an attempt to deceive (or is an idiot) and is hence a liar. I corrected you more than once when you warbled on about Chen without ever having read the judgement. I even went through the case in baby steps so no-one would be fooled by your lies/thitherto lack of understanding. To put it simply, I read the judgement, you didn't. And apparently you didn't have the capacity to read my comprehensive idiot's guide provided more than once as a reply and linked to numerous times by others when you prattled on about something (the Chen decision) you presumably couldn't understand. In case you've finally decided to read about the object of your derision, my summary of the decision is still here. Bonkey's summary above is also just as good. I probably wouldn't have had to type it if you'd actually read the case so do the world a favour and at least read that.

[1]And I'm using the term "liar" perfectly well as an accusation given the number of times you were corrected on misapplying the case (including by me here, here and here (the latter also contains my thoughts on what it means for McDowell to be a liar and I'm applying the same logic to you)), including this very issue. It's as easy to find others citing the same posts in replies on the same thread. Case proven for guilt as a liar, ignorance of reality[2] and/or insanity for those of us with the ability and time to read.

[2]See appeal for reality-based posting in last paragraph of this post

MrPudding

bobbyjoe wrote:

Also a Nigerian is representing Ireland in the Mr Universe power-lifting competition in Manchester. But only after getting special discompensation from the Department of Justice to allow him to go.

Slight correction. I think the special dispensation was to allow him to come back. They had no problem with him going, they weren't going to let him back in was the problem.

MrP

mycroft

Slightly off topic, but has anyone else who's posted on here the last few months developed an irrational dislike of transformers and Optimus Prime in particular?

omnicorp

Gosh, Yes.
How did you know?
Are you phycic?
No really?

arcadegame2004

I will shortly post evidence of my contention regarding Chen okay.

MrPudding

Elmo wrote:

Two questions:-

1. Does the figure of 422 include all of the babies born to mothers from
a. each of the 10 new countries of the EU
b. all other 1st world countries (Such as USA, Canada etc)
c. each of the 14 other old countries of the EU?

2. What are the current figures like?

I pointed this out in the original referendum thread. I am from NI and my GF is from France. We have been living down here for a number of years. Our son was born in the Coombe Hospital. When the birth is registered it is only registered under the mother, in this case, a French national. It matters not that she lives and pays tax here. Our son is one of those 400 births. We are not citizenship tourists. My non-national GF just happened to get pregnant and give birth while we lived here. I am sure we are not the only case of this.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Originally Posted by Elmo

Two questions:-

1. Does the figure of 422 include all of the babies born to mothers from
a. each of the 10 new countries of the EU
b. all other 1st world countries (Such as USA, Canada etc)
c. each of the 14 other old countries of the EU?

2. What are the current figures like?

No it doesn't!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No it doesn't!

Not it doesn't....what?

There's three parts to question 1. If you read what was originally posted, the comment clearly referred to children of non-EU National parents in 2003.

Thus, the answer is not "no", but rather "yes", "yes" and "no" respectively.

There is a possibility that the first yes should be no, in that they used the birth-figures from 2003, but the EU-definition from 2004, but in either case, the non-EU first-world countries are included.

Unless, of course, the papers were attributing a quote which was false....and if thats the case, then I guess all of your newspaper-based evidence should also be considered suspect in the absence of something more solid....

....which we're all waiting for with baited breath about Chen as well....

jc

bonkey

MrPudding wrote:

Our son is one of those 400 births.

AS I just explained to arcade....he isn't....unless the quote from the newspaper earlier (posted by Hobbes?) was false.

However, he most certainly is amongst many of the other figures which have previously been used in reference to citizenship shoppers.

jc

Rezmuter Duane

Criticising the referendum at this stage is pointless. You may as well hit your head off a brick wall. It will not be changed. It was passed by 80% of the voters in the referendum and as the referendum turnout was high, I do not expect a change in position. You should respect the decision of the Irish people agree with the referendum. Also, why should our laws be out of sync with almost everyone else? We have a right to only give citizenship to those with a link to our society. If the Irish people choose to use this right then so be it!!!

Sparks

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Criticising the referendum at this stage is pointless. You may as well hit your head off a brick wall. It will not be changed.

Indeed. Just like Nice.

It was passed by 80% of the voters in the referendum

I am so close to obeying Godwins law here...

You should respect the decision of the Irish people agree with the referendum.

Why?

Also, why should our laws be out of sync with almost everyone else?

Why not?

MrPudding

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Also, why should our laws be out of sync with almost everyone else?

I agree. We should legalise abortion now so we can be inline with the rest of Europe. I mean like you say why should our laws be out of sync with almost everyone else?

MrP

The_Conductor

Sparks wrote:

I am so close to obeying Godwins law here...

Mike Godwin proposed that anyone who mentions nazism or hitler is automatically wrong and the argument forfeit by the person who brought it up, and considered closed.........

I would like to invoke Quirk's exception-

Intentional invocation of the Nazi Clause is ineffectual.

Note on how to post about Nazis and get away with it:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

S.