The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

Raskolnikov

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Agree with what most is being said here, but having Irish people leeching off welfare is no argument to have immigrants doing the same though.


Like it or not, there are ten of thousands of immigrants here who are staying. While I don't agree with a lot of people here who voted No on the citizenship debate (I'm not all that big on "asylum seekers" either to be honest), I feel it's important that the immigrants who've got (ie, new citizens and those on work permits) are protected and allowed the full benefit that any other Irish citizen gets. Just because these guys are sweeping our floors and stacking our shelves shouldn't mean they deserve the crap that a sizeable minority are dishing out.

As for the whole immigration mess? Personally, I blame the government, if we're going to allow immigrants to stay here, then it's their job to educate the people about them and their benefits. But because they've done absolutely nothing to inform us on the matter, speculation and hearsay has just ballooned and thus, we get stories of asylum seekers getting free BMW's and free houses. So far, we've only heard a few vague mentions of 'cultural enrichment' and all that nonsense as the benefits. For every unwanted job vacancy filled by an immigrant we get more being circulated in the economy, more money circulated means more money for businesses, more money for business means more jobs for us and less spent on welfare. It's elementary economics but yet a more convincing case for immigration. Why the government doesn't see fit to make public these benefits leads me to two conclusions.

1. Our government is incompetent and can't comprehend elementary economics.

2. The government has yet to grasp fundamental economics and are incompetent.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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?

The "ordinary" man on the street has probably never meet an asylum-seeker, had any contact with asylum-seeker organisation, or has any dealing with asylum-seekers statistics gathering. So the man on the street knows jack sh1t about what is actually happening.

How can you say this Wicknight! Look at all those who voted Yes. They care about the issue of asylum-seekers

And that just kinda proves my point right there, because (drum roll please) the refferendum had absolutly nothing at all to do with asylum-seekers!! :eek:

we have been over this before. and just you continuously bring the issue of asylum-seekers and the referendum together as if people were voting on whether they agree with Irelands refugee program. Two things are possible here

A - You don't have a clue what you are talking about, and the result was no reflection on the populations feelings towards asylum-seekers.

B - It was a reflection of the populations feelings towards asylum-seekers and the Yes voting population are idiots who let scaremongering tactics effect how they voted, because the referendum was nothing to do with asylum policy

Either way :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

Billions!!!! Arrragghghghhagh. Run for the hills!! No one told me there were Billions of slitty eyed Chinese children coming to Ireland. What will we do!! The dole lines are going to be fecking massive!!!!! None of the "true" Irish people will be able to find work, and ordering fast food is going to be a nightmare!!

Oh thats right, we have had 4000 refugees in the last 10 years ... few <sigh> :rolleyes:

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

He didn't though. Your numbers don't add up. Or rather they add up but you seem to be claiming 61,000 as if it is a lot of people when in fact that total is spread over 13 years (I assume 13, as it doesn't add up with 12 years of available data).

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.

No it doesn't. For example did you know there have been accepted cases of people claiming asylum from the USA (this is before Bush got into power as well), as well as other countries.

By the way you went on about women coming here pregent to get citizenship. Well I wached such a story on RTE this morning. The mother is not given the rights to stay in Ireland automatically, even if the child has Irish citizenship. A large number of these mothers are and have been deported, in some instances the children are left in care in Ireland because they know they will get a better life here.

Citizenship-referendum, so I would have thought such an exit-poll was relevant to that.

How can an exit poll prove it? It's like one of your stupid polls that claim because more people vote for an option in the poll it must be true.

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.

You have proof to back this up? Because proof otherwise has already been posted showing you are full of crap.

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.

No, claiming that your race/nationality is better then others is Facism.

I am not sure where you are getting these billions from? Are you claiming now there are billions of third world children just waiting to come here? (which is impressive seeing as the world population is only around 6 billion).

I think you need a new calculator.

lucernarian

originally posted by arcadegame2004
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.

Three things-
1. I explicitly said that

Anyone who links patriotism with discrimination on ethnic culture grounds is simply a Nazi/Fascist.

I will never take what I actually said back because it's 100% true. You know that as well as I do.

2. I stated that the above qoute, not some gross misinterpretation/blatant distortion of the above quote, was a description of a Nazi/Fascist.

3. Furthermore, the quote above summed up the nationalistic+racist ideals of a "real" Nazi/Fascist. As your first point was a gross distortion of what I actually said, this means that your second point is also flawed as it was based on the first point. Of course, arguments will be ludicrous if you make them up.

Btw before you dig a deeper hole for yourself, make sure you have the basic skill of reading a sentence.

arcadegame2004

Oh thats right, we have had 4000 refugees in the last 10 years ... few

61,000 asylum seekers and a lot of them granted asylum just by having a child here. It is true.

For example did you know there have been accepted cases of people claiming asylum from the USA (this is before Bush got into power as well), as well as other countries.

Claiming asylum here? Now that shows how insane the asylum-system must be. Or if you are referring to persons like the guy who defected to North Korea, then I simply say he made his own bed by throwing his lot in with one of the world's most pernicious and vile dictatorships.

How can an exit poll prove it? It's like one of your stupid polls that claim because more people vote for an option in the poll it must be true.

The exit-polls were remarkably accurate in predicting the European election results so I feel they are testament to people's opinions.

No, claiming that your race/nationality is better then others is Facism.

Agreed. Did I dispute that?

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

I confirmed the total number of applications for asylum from non-nationals over a 13 year period. Its an aggregate figure from a period in time, not a snapshot of any situation at a single point in time. As the CORI table showed- prior to 1992 the levels of non-nationals claiming asylum here were neglible- thus the aggregate figure could reasonably be used as an approximation of the total number of people who have historically applied for asylum status here. As its historic data- its impossible to use it to extrapolate in a dynamic environment.

I'd strongly advise that you read the second link I posted on asylum seeker myths.

S.

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

61,000 asylum seekers and a lot of them granted asylum just by having a child here. It is true.

It's already been pointed out to you, with sources, that it isn't. Saying it isn't so, with no evidence other than your personal assurance, isn't going to cut it.

The exit-polls were remarkably accurate in predicting the European election results so I feel they are testament to people's opinions.

So would you then accept the exit polls from the referendum itself, which showed that over two-thirds of those who voted yes did so on the basis of a belief that the country was being swamped by immigrants despite the fact that the statisics show they were overreacting drasticly?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

61,000 asylum seekers and a lot of them granted asylum just by having a child here. It is true.

Ok.

Enough is enough.

Either drop the misinformative propaganda, or I will remove you from this forum.

You are consistenly producing firgures only to have the relevancy of them torn to shreds....and then you re-present them, with other conclusions (equally stupidly false and equally stupidly easy to tear apart) as if nothing had happened.

You provided figures for the massive percentages who have been refused asylum. Either take that into account, or I will start assuming you are deliberately trying to mislead people with information you know to be not entirely true - i.e. you're lying, and I'll ban you for it.

Hobbes then pointed to the flaw in the whole "mothers" argument, which you are ignoring. This could mean you aren't reading replies, in which case you're not trying to add to the discussion, but rather just use it as a soap-box for your propaganda. Again...if thats the case, I'll ban you for it.

(Thats a single example, but I could take essentially any single one of your posts and point to the same or similar behaviour.)

Alternately, you could hace read Hobbes point about the mothers...in which case you're deliberately choosing not to address it, and deliberately ignoring it because you don't have an easy answer for it and don't want it to stand in the way of your (false) arguments. Again...if you've no interest in discussion, I'll remove you.

The final option is that you're doing all of this deliberately to piss people off. Yes, you could indeed be a troll. If you'd like to choose that option, I'll ban you for that too.

Time is up arcade. Either start showing that you-re here for more than to stand on a soapbox spreading hate and making continuous insipid comments about the Left / Socialism, or get out.

Its that simple.

jc

ecksor

Leading on from my post pointing out consistent innumeracy, it's also quite possible to do such things from an entirely cynical point of view hoping that the figures will appear plausible and convincing to someone which will help to further the propaganda that you wish to spread. That's only speculation though, from observation alone it's impossible to tell the difference.

arcadegame2004

By the way you went on about women coming here pregent to get citizenship. Well I wached such a story on RTE this morning. The mother is not given the rights to stay in Ireland automatically, even if the child has Irish citizenship. A large number of these mothers are and have been deported, in some instances the children are left in care in Ireland because they know they will get a better life here.

Could you please provide a link to that report? And anyway, a large number does not tell us the %. It could be argued that "large numbers" of asylum-seekers were deported last year (roughly 700) but that still represented a miniscule percentage.

You are consistenly producing firgures only to have the relevancy of them torn to shreds....and then you re-present them, with other conclusions (equally stupidly false and equally stupidly easy to tear apart) as if nothing had happened.

Bonkey, I notice you stated the above quotation just after quoting me saying that 61,000 people claimed asylum in Ireland. Why is that figure "irrelevant"? You say the relevance of my figures are "torn to shreds". Could you give me specific examples please. I feel that my point about the 93% is very relevant.

I totally reject the argument that the asylum-issue is unrelated to the Citizenship-referendum.

You and others on this forum are entitled to disagree with me on that.

However, as a moderator, I would hope that you could rise above partisan squabbles. In a debatie, there are opposing sides. If there weren't, then instead of a debate you have an undemocratic enforced uniformity.

I make no apologies for being on the political Right on economic and immigration issues (though most certainly I am NOT on the political racist Far-Right). My firm believe in centre-right policies for the Health-Service and other areas has earned the ire of some on this forum, but I contend that the polling figures, including on this website, indicate that the proportion of forum visitors who agree with me is far higher than the passion indicated by my opponents would suggest.

Ideology is to be welcomed in that it gives us a clear choice in politics. For far too long, the legacy of the Civil War prevented the emergence of ideology, and I feel that the political process and Ireland's economic and social needs suffered for it.

I ask that we not promote a return to those bad-old days.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

61,000 asylum seekers and a lot of them granted asylum just by having a child here. It is true.

Sorry but that is total crap. 61,000 would equate to men, women and children (not native to Ireland). I know for a fact that having a child here does not guarantee you can stay here if your asylum fails (and it isn't factored in).

Or if you are referring to persons like the guy who defected to North Korea,

No I am talking about everyday folks. Offhand (and I'll try find his name) there is a famous American reporter who claimed Asylum outside of the US. There are certainly others.

Defecting is not the same as claiming Asylum.

The exit-polls were remarkably accurate in predicting the European election results so I feel they are testament to people's opinions.

Sorry but opinion+polls do not equate to truth. For example we could have a poll to see if ArcadeGame is a wanker, and I suspect you would get the majority vote. Does that mean you are automatically a wanker?

Agreed. Did I dispute that?

Only in the fact that you exhibit the qualities of Facism then claim your not.

Could you please provide a link to that report? And anyway, a large number does not tell us the %. It could be argued that "large numbers" of asylum-seekers were deported last year (roughly 700) but that still represented a miniscule percentage.

Thats pretty rich coming from you who fails to post proof to back things up. It was on RTE this morning. I'll dig out a link a little later.

Why is that figure "irrelevant"? You say the relevance of my figures are "torn to shreds". Could you give me specific examples please. I feel that my point about the 93% is very relevant.

You could read the ones already there.

arcadegame2004

Sorry but opinion+polls do not equate to truth. For example we could have a poll to see if ArcadeGame is a wanker, and I suspect you would get the majority vote. Does that mean you are automatically a wanker?

The poll was an exit-poll of those who had ALREADY voted. So it was not your common-or-garden run of the mill poll. It was of those who had voted. As such it was more accurate.

I did not throw personal abuse at you so I respectfully ask you not to do the same.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, I notice you stated the above quotation just after quoting me saying that 61,000 people claimed asylum in Ireland. Why is that figure "irrelevant"?

Certainly. Allow em to re-iterate the points I've already made about it.

Firstly, the number of asylum claims is independant of the number of people granted asylum. None of the others retain a right to remain in the country. This immediately calls into suspicion the relevance of the figure.

Clarifying - it's about as relevant as the number of applications we had for work permits, as opposed to the number of people who were actually given work permits, or to the number of people working ilegally in the country without permits.

Now...of that number, there are those who are granted asylum, those who are refused, and those who are yet to be processed.

The first group should be allowed into the country. If they have a valid asylum claim, then we are bound to allow them in. Just because you may not like that their claims are legally valid has nothing to do with it - their claims are valid : they are fleeing from suffering of some kind. I asked if you were sugggesting that we should start refusing people with valid asylum claims, but you didn't answer.

You also supplied a figure that - last year - 93% of applications were denied. In the absence of information suggesting that last year was somehow unusual, lets assume that somewhere 93% of all 61,000 asylum claims are invalid. That means that of the 61,000, only somewhere around 4,300 people are legally entitled to remain in the country once their claim is processed.

So, of the remaining 56,700, there are those who have been refused and have been deported, those who have been refused and should be deported, and those who have not yet been processed and should be allowed remain until we process their claim.

The first of those groups is gone. They are no longer part of the 61,000 and have no relevance to the numbers of ppl in our country "living off" us.

The second of the groups should be gone, and it is the implementation of the pre-referendum system which is at fault, not the system itself (A point I've been making since the referendum was announced, and which I don't recall ever seeing you answer to). Regardless, those people have no right to any State assistance, and should they ever find themselves in need of medical assistance or something else which our system legally obliges us to give them, then they should be arrested at that point, and either charged and sentenced for ilegally remainining in the country, or deported. Furthermore, the change that the referndum allows for does not change this situation.

The third of those groups - those not yet processed - is even more irrelevant. Firstly, pre- or post- referendum, we are still obliged to care for any asylum seeker until such times as their claim is processed. This hasn't changed. What also hasn't changed is the method in which we do it - which is what is primarily at fault. Regardless, the fact remains that once the non-processed are processed, unless there is some significant shift in terms of invalid applications, most of them should be deported anyway once their claim is found to be bogus.

Going one step further...

Of those 61,000, those effected by the actual referendum (i.e. the only ones relevant) will predominantly be the females (as men can't give birth and "citizenship-shop" as you allege so many women are doing). This is a breakdown you haven't provided, so the figure 61,000 is not relevant to it. However, as Hobbes has pointed out - and as I believe was pointed out several times in the run-up to the referendum - the Irish government had adopted a stance that citizenship for the child did not give the parents a right to remain in the state. This entire thread is what spawned the all-too-oft mention of the Chen case - which as you know was of no issue as it only allowed the parent to remain if they could prove they would be no burden on the state.

You say the relevance of my figures are "torn to shreds". Could you give me specific examples please. I feel that my point about the 93% is very relevant.

Yes - your figure of 93% is very relevant in showing why the problem with the pre-referendum system was one of failure to execute existing laws rather than a need for a new one. It showed that the vast, vast majority of ppl coming here should not have been allowed to stay had we had our act together and our system was working like it should.

As I have mentioned time and time and time again (and which I also don't recall a single response from you on), there is no reason to believe that adding another rule that we do not enforce to the ones we are currently not enforcing will resolve an issue which is primarily caused by us not enforcing the laws we already have.

The 61,000 also included a large number of people from nations who will no longer be seeking asylum as they are now EU members themselves. In terms of the referendum itself, and your "citizenship shopping" argument, this group no longer exists as an issue. (If they were not an issue in the first place, then including them in the "problematic" 61,000 is misleading). So, 61,000 over 12 years should not necessarily even be averaged to 5000 a year, but rather something far lower.

Getting the picture yet? I can't see a single argument as to how 61,000 is relevant. Parts of it are relevant, but then again parts of the world's X billion population are relevant and I would sincerely hope that we're not gonna throw around X Billion potential asylum-seekers as a reason why we needed to change the system.

I totally reject the argument that the asylum-issue is unrelated to the Citizenship-referendum.

Firstly, I don't believe I've never said the asylum issue is unrelated. I've said that the figure of 61,000 is irrelevant and misleading.

Secondly : explain why. I've explained above in detail why every single aspect of the 61,000 that I can recall you mentioning has nothing to do with the citizenship referendum, and I can't recall you addressing a single one of those counter-arguments. So tell me why you believe I - and the others who raised these and similar points - are wrong. Tell me what we're missing in each of those points. Explain why they are valid, rather than just ignoring the counter-argument and coming back with "well, I think they are".

However, as a moderator, I would hope that you could rise above partisan squabbles.

If you wish to see it as a partisan squabble, thats entirely your perogative. I've already explained my reasoning.

In a debatie, there are opposing sides.

Yes, and they usually are expected to do the other side the courtesy of addressing the counter-arguments, or - if not - of ceding the point (i.e. if you accept you're wrong, you don't necessarily have to go "yes, I was wrong", but you would be expected not to raise the point again as though you still believe you're right).

And yes, I accept that not every single point of every single post can be addressed. But I would expect you to address the ones where posters come back time after time after time asking you the same (unanswered) questions while you blindly continue to trot out your version of the truth. If I were to mention the housing issue, for example, would it ring a bell?

Furthermore, this is a discussion forum, not a debating forum. In a discussion, it is even more imperative that you actually engage in dialogue. This involves listening and responding to what the other people are saying....not just calmly ignoring it as if it never happened.

If there weren't, then instead of a debate you have an undemocratic enforced uniformity.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

If you want to see my stance as coming from the fact that I disagree with you, perhaps you may want to consider why there are a multitude of other posters who I never see eye-to-eye to and who I don't try to "enforce uniformity" on.

In fact, most people who know me well realise that I'm more interested in the discussion/argument/debate than in what side I - or anyone else - happens to be on.

I contend that the polling figures, including on this website, indicate that the proportion of forum visitors who agree with me is far higher than the passion indicated by my opponents would suggest.

I'm reading back over my last post and trying to see where I said I had a problem because you simply disagreed with me....and I can't find it. I can see where I made a number of points about the manner in which you are posting, but I honestly can't see where I said anything about the side you chose, nor how popular, right or wrong it may be.

jc

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The poll was an exit-poll of those who had ALREADY voted. So it was not your common-or-garden run of the mill poll. It was of those who had voted. As such it was more accurate.

Yes - it is relatively accurate as an answer to a relatively unqualified question which the voter did not necessarily take a significant amount of time to consider.

it can be considered as a reasonablely accurate representation of public sentiment at the time for the exact question. It cannot be accurately interpreted to infer anything other than what was specifically asked.

I did not throw personal abuse at you so I respectfully ask you not to do the same.

Agreed. Hobbes....

jc

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The poll was an exit-poll of those who had ALREADY voted. So it was not your common-or-garden run of the mill poll. It was of those who had voted. As such it was more accurate.

I did not throw personal abuse at you so I respectfully ask you not to do the same.

Who is throwing personal abuse? I was trying to prove a point which you missed so obviously. Lets say we have the same poll and the exit-poll says that your a wanker, does that mean you are a wanker?

I don't think it does, the same way everyone voting yes on the referrendum doesn't automatically mean that the majority of Asylum seekers are lying to get here or that the majority of pregnant asylum seekers are only doing it to stay here.

Understand now? Or are you a lost cause?

So you understand now that you are throwing abuse by saying that the majority of Asylum seekers are cheating because everyone took a vote.

bonkey wrote:

it can be considered as a reasonablely accurate representation of public sentiment at the time for the exact question. It cannot be accurately interpreted to infer anything other than what was specifically asked.

Exactly.

Typedef

I concur with ioanpaul.

I always have and still do hold the veiw that the citizenship referendum was nothing more then a right wing government cracking down on minorities, for a cheap party political parlour trick.

Moreover, the recent high profile deportations of Nigerians, in my view are most likely a legacy of this right wing and racially motivated motif in Irish society.

Honestly I was watching the news last night, seeing a Nigerian woman being forced to leave her child behind in this country... and I really began to wonder if I _had_ grown up in Ireland... because the societal trends that would not only allow, but, actively persecute this type of ... what can only be described as a pogrom, is so 'completely' at odds with my socio-political outlook... that I honestly wonder... what it means to be Irish and if I can really idenfitfy myself as one.

Ireland is supposed to have been a nation who has suffered under the tyrrany of English Imperialists, who treated us a lesser class of people... and "oh how we've sufferd sor.. sure Jaysus, dem feckin' English were mighty terrible.. shootin all dem Catholics on bludy Sundy... oh sing a song for Eireann sor" etc, while the reality of this nation is that... we _are_ a kiniving and underhanded people... who will reject people in need in our country. The national mentality here is that sure, the blacks have a rough time in Ethopia, and in a typically racist fashion, the idea of bringing Irish money and civilisation to the 'poor blacks' who can't even manage to feed themselves appeals to the Irish sense of vanity, but, seeing 'fu*king nig*ers' walking down the road, why we never signed up for that! No, no, they have to go back to Ethopia or Nigeria or wherever the hell it is they came from, because they spread disease and take Irish jobs and 'dole'.

That's the 'real' mentality of Ireland, and it is a farce, a hyprocacy which could only be perpitrated by a people who have _so much_ in comparison to the rest of the world, but, still manage to feel so damn sorry for themselves. It's a sickening double standard, which results in 'real' people 'really' suffering.

For me, the deportations bring right to the brim 'everything' that is worst about Ireland. It's not the violence up North which is part of our 'Great struggle'... it's the abject 'lack' of wisdom we as a people show as a result of the 'disenfranchisement' of the Northern Irish nationalist and the complete lack of consequent compassion that , the Northern experience (which just about every Irish person will whinge about), has given us as a people.

Typically for the Irish, instead of beating our chests about the fact that as a nation we are deeply racist, the Irish, being a nation familiar with tight lipped Machevellian tactics, have simply (almost in a collective form of conspiracy), turned a blind eye to the 'real world' consequences of Constitutional and Legislative change, because the Irish realised that A) brandishing white sheets on their heads would make them a spectacle of international hatred and the 'lynching(no pun)' mentality is not so pervasive in the Republic and that since white people are in a vast majority and black people are essentially regarded as some form of less evolved people in Ireland, that a simple a decisive legal move against a melting pot, would achive all the aims that managed to unite (for once) the hatred of the blacks in the working class, with that of the middle and upper classes.

It really is 'amazing' that a little racism in Ireland would make the strangest bedfellows of people, the farmer, the taxi driver, the barrister, the dole queue 'employee', all finally united in their National goal of purging the unclean from Ireland.

Who needs Saint Patrick?

We have Michael McDowell.

I honestly do find it fascinating that the same Dublin Taxi drivers who have "Ireland for sale? See the PDs" as window stickers are the same men who _motivated_ themselves to get up and make sure there were no more Nig*ers in Ireland.. and voted with Michael McDowell... arch PD right winger extrodinaire.

The irony is simply delicious.

arcadegame2004

Honestly I was watching the news last night, seeing a Nigerian woman being forced to leave her child behind in this country... and I really began to wonder if I _had_ grown up in Ireland... because the societal trends that would not only allow, but, actively persecute this type of ... what can only be described as a pogrom, is so 'completely' at odds with my socio-political outlook... that I honestly wonder... what it means to be Irish and if I can really idenfitfy myself as one.

Well I consider the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in Ireland in 2003 were pregnant at their time of application to smack of births-for-citizenship. Yes, so the mother doesn't automatically get citizenship too (though this WAS the case before January 2003), but in truth, many will still get it as they put down roots and gain institutional sympathy from the authorities.

This Nigerian woman probably had the child with citizenship in mind. She most likely arrived before the referendum. I say that based on the fact that there has been a large drop in asylum-claims this year. We have read LOADS of newspaper reports on citizenship-motivated births. I will post links to articles in the press about this if people here want.

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.

Ireland is supposed to have been a nation who has suffered under the tyrrany of English Imperialists, who treated us a lesser class of people... and "oh how we've sufferd sor.. sure Jaysus, dem feckin' English were mighty terrible.. shootin all dem Catholics on bludy Sundy... oh sing a song for Eireann sor" etc, while the reality of this nation is that... we _are_ a kiniving and underhanded people... who will reject people in need in our country. The national mentality here is that sure, the blacks have a rough time in Ethopia, and in a typically racist fashion, the idea of bringing Irish money and civilisation to the 'poor blacks' who can't even manage to feed themselves appeals to the Irish sense of vanity, but, seeing 'fu*king nig*ers' walking down the road, why we never signed up for that! No, no, they have to go back to Ethopia or Nigeria or wherever the hell it is they came from, because they spread disease and take Irish jobs and 'dole'.

It is because we were treated badly by foreigners that we don't ever intend allowing foreigners to take us over again, including by outnumbering us. Look what happened to the Indians in the present-day states of North and South America. I greatly sympathise with persons from the Third World, but I cannot understand why immigrants from there cannot remain in Spain or Italy where they first landed. Why don't they do this? Explain please. And explain why we should bear the costs that Spain and Italy should rightfully be taking on. Why does someone genuinely fleeing persecution need to come to Ireland, having passed through 6 or 7 safe EU countries? Forget the legalistics about asylum for a moment. Please tell me why you believe someone should be allowed to claim asylum in 6 different EU states one after another. I would be VERY interested to hear your arguments.

For me, the deportations bring right to the brim 'everything' that is worst about Ireland. It's not the violence up North which is part of our 'Great struggle'... it's the abject 'lack' of wisdom we as a people show as a result of the 'disenfranchisement' of the Northern Irish nationalist and the complete lack of consequent compassion that , the Northern experience (which just about every Irish person will whinge about), has given us as a people.

Having compassion for the Third World does not mean we should allow unlimited immigration here. I know of no country that does not deport illegal immigrants. Do you? Would you make the same criticisms of them?

The_Conductor

Excuse me for stating the obvious- but your entire argument is based on hysterics.

S.

lucernarian

I am ashamed that around 80% of people fell for "Common sense citizenship". I also found it strange that I didn't see a single "Vote No" poster im my local town of 30,000 people. Aswell, I see that my native constituency of Louth had the 3rd highest "yes" percentage, followed by Meath with 2nd.

I think that the placement of a large asylum seeker centre at Mosney may have convinced people in my area that we were being "swamped with ni****s". Damn government is helping the populist feeling instead of taking meaningful action and changing their own mistakes instead of a constitutional article.

lucernarian

originally posted by arcadegame2004
And explain why we should bear the costs that Spain and Italy should rightfully be taking on.

We should be bearing more costs than we are based on UN guidelines.
I find that attitude a very selfish one.

Cute_Button

smccarrick- I agree.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I consider the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in Ireland in 2003 were pregnant at their time of application to smack of births-for-citizenship.

Great at making wonderful widespread statements. Proof? Can you show us an official link? 58%- really....

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It is because we were treated badly by foreigners that we don't ever intend allowing foreigners to take us over again, including by outnumbering us.

Ooooh- allowing that 50% of the asylum seekers are female, and a success rate of 8% that means- they will outnumber us in (damn no calculator to hand) hmmm allowing one child each 4,000 years, or even exponentially allowing 5 children each and a generational turnaround of 15 years..... hmmm (brain functions in over drive) if all children were female and each had 5 children in a 15 year time frame..... hmmmm around 76-78 years..... (assuming a population replenishment rate of less than 2 for the local population.........)

Your stats just don't add up guy- even in the worst possible scenarios- they are total bull****....

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Look what happened to the Indians in the present-day states of North and South America. I greatly sympathise with persons from the Third World, but I cannot understand why immigrants from there cannot remain in Spain or Italy where they first landed. Why don't they do this? Explain please. And explain why we should bear the costs that Spain and Italy should rightfully be taking on.

Ahhh- you don't mind refugees- as long as they are someone else's problem- as Douglas Adams puts it- a SEP scenario- Someone Elses Problem.....

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why does someone genuinely fleeing persecution need to come to Ireland, having passed through 6 or 7 safe EU countries?

Now I get it- you got browned off when they told you where to go when you started ranting on the thread about the number of foreign workers who came here, and decided to reignite your hitleresque diatribe here........

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Forget the legalistics about asylum for a moment. Please tell me why you believe someone should be allowed to claim asylum in 6 different EU states one after another. I would be VERY interested to hear your arguments.

Totally ignoring the ludicrousness of your arguments- have you ever been stopped the genmendarie in France for having broken headlights? Detained and questioned by unnamed security agencies in Madrid for accidently taking photographs when you didn't understand the language on the signs.....

One possible reason- we speak English. MOST OF US are reasonable, welcoming, fairly easygoing folk who don't bother listening to inflamatory fascist statements like yours.

So what- there goes a black woman with her children- I like kids and hope to have my own some day. I couldn't care less who they grow up with, as long as they are happy, reasonably well mannered kids who have good ethics and aren't afraid to speak their mind or stand up to bullies like you.

Typedef

I find arcadegame2004, that despite claiming not to have racially motivated reasons for wishing to link Asylum seeking and the right of citizenship together, that, however disporate your points are, that they enivatably lead back to the same conclusion. That conclusion namely being that asylum seekers are some sort of opportunists.

"Why don't they stay in the first country they come to"
"Why do they come to Ireland"
"They're defrauding the State"
"They're having babies to stay here, so they can go on defrauding the state".

Quite simply, you haven't managed to substanciate the claim that asylum seekers are some sort of opportunists and in fact, as it stands now "Asylum seeker" seems to have for you come to mean "black" and to a lesser extent Eastern European.

I wonder exactly how you are equating the term Asylum seeker, with anything 'other' then what the name directly applies to, namely a person who seeks asylum?

All groupings of people suffer from capitalists or those who would seek to defraud the hand of friendship extended to them, but, your blithe assertions (which I notice you've toned down) that throngs of people admitted to this country 'would' exploit the state is a racist statement.

In fact from what I can glean from your line of argument, that essentially 'racist' belief that using the term we defined earlier an "Asylum seeker", being a non-national, 'must' therefore only be in Ireland because they "know" that Ireland is a soft touch, is actually not too far away from simply asserting that people of different skin colour, have varying levels of intelligence.

Perhaps you'd like to assuage some of the issues I've raised here.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I consider the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in Ireland in 2003 were pregnant at their time of application to smack of births-for-citizenship. Yes, so the mother doesn't automatically get citizenship too (though this WAS the case before January 2003), but in truth, many will still get it as they put down roots and gain institutional sympathy from the authorities.

I believe that what you have said is jumping to conclusions.

I might and in fact am saying that the women who arrived come from a different socio-economic background, where birth rates are high, contraception and awareness of contraception is not widespread and indeed sometimes is castigated within those socities.

I think the conclusion you have tried to draw smacks of paranoia, can't be proved except by assumption and circumstancial evidence and therefore I attest that what you have just said is a racially motivated statement, since you can in no way 'prove' unequivocally what you have said and I ask you to respond to the point I made that the culture, is not a culture which has the same sexual attitudes as those in Ireland and therefore, birth rates are much higher. How do you respond?

Do you realise that the birth rate in Nigeria is 34.8/1000 ?
http://www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/birth_rate.html

With an average life expectancy of 50.3 years for women

http://www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/life_expectancy_at_birth.html, that means that at any given time 8% of Nigerian women are pregnant. If you take the mean of the 'age' of women who leave Nigeria 16-40 (childbearing years I might add), I would expect roghly 12% of women from Nigeria arriving in Ireland to in one state or other of having a baby.

Since I have provided evidence to substanciate my position, I would if you could furnish me with some internet based corroboration of your statistics?

I've looked all through this thread and I can't find a single place, you've linked to backup your claims. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind doing so now.

My assertion is that if you cannot backup the claim that 53% of Nigerian women entering this country are or were pregnant then I must conclude that you figures were invented to support a racially motivated argument.

This Nigerian woman probably had the child with citizenship in mind. She most likely arrived before the referendum.

arcadegame2004, you cannot pass assumption off as fact. You must either back this position up, or retract it. If you don't retract it, I must say, you will seem from where I sit at least, wholely motivated by a racist ethic, which motivates you to make unsubstanciated claims about people based on ethnicity and country of origin.

It is because we were treated badly by foreigners that we don't ever intend allowing foreigners to take us over again, including by outnumbering us.

Define what you mean by that? Are you trying to suggest that Asylum seekers will outnumber the Irish someday? Ireland is at liberty to refuse asylum status, what you've said is patently ludicrous and I'd again ask you to substanciate the ways and means (in a non-ludicrous form) how Irish people would be outnumbered by refugees?

Look what happened to the Indians in the present-day states of North and South America.

Yes the Indians were in a mechanised fashion herded into 'reservations' and gradually stripped of their traditional lands by a technologically advanced civilisation. In this context, it is Ireland which has the advantage of money, resources and technology, not the refugee, so your point is completely meritless.

I greatly sympathise with persons from the Third World, but I cannot understand why immigrants from there cannot remain in Spain or Italy where they first landed.

Ah, that's a rallying cry. I wonder again, aside from the rumour and innuendo you've heard via Chinese whispers, if you can provide 'figures' to prove this claim? However you seem to think that an Refugee who is seeking asylum is somehow 'required' to seek asylum in the first country they come to. That is simply not the case. Perhaps there are religious, ethnic or language based reasons for that. I would speculate that a Spanish speaking Refugee would first seek out refuge in a Spanish speaking country, before an English speaking country.

From the asylum seekers point of view, the standard of living in Spain, Italy and Ireland are comporable and before you go making unfounded and totally unproved claims about aslyum seekers (knowing) Ireland is a soft target, you should remember that either you can prove that, or you can state it as your opinion, but, without proof, that opinon can and will be challenged as racists and foundationless.

Why don't they do this?

As I've just postulated for you, the likelyhood is that the majority of the Refugees are English speaking and in this context, the UK, takes in an order of magnitude more refugees then Ireland. In that context, I don't think it's such a crazy idea, that Ireland should take in it's fair share, of people, who are fleeing persecution. Perhaps even though you pay lipservice to sympathising with the Third world, you should go and live there for a while, and perhaps that would illucidate you as to the 'motivation' of these people to leave, in any way they can.

I think it is very easy for you to make sweeping statements about these people, form your ivory tower, and claim to have their sympathy at heart, but, say that, just to avoid castigation and if that is not the case, I wonder if you could tell me, 'how many' Asylum seekers you think is the right number for Ireland to take in each year and give a logical reason to support those numbers?

Please tell me why you believe someone should be allowed to claim asylum in 6 different EU states one after another. I would be VERY interested to hear your arguments.

Point 1: Ireland needs to take it's responsibility in taking on Asylum seekers and not simply pass it off to larger countries.

Point 2: Ireland doesn't take on much more or less per capita then most other EU countries, so your hysterical chant is unjustified.

Point 3: If all the asylum seekers stayed in the first country they came to, the 'land sites' would take on all that burdon and we must shoulder the responsibility with our EU partners.

Point 4: Since we are talking about people and not cattle, the wishes of those people 'must' be taken into account.

Point 5: Predicating form point 4, if those people wish to seek asylum is an English speaking country, or a Catholic country for personal or other reasons, then based on a fair system where Ireland doesn't encumber it's EU partners with the entire burdon of asylum support, every effort and every hand of friendship both to the refugee and to our partner countries 'must' be extended, because Ireland does not live in a bubble of splendid isolation.

I know of no country that does not deport illegal immigrants. Do you? Would you make the same criticisms of them?

arcadegame2004, please try not to confuse the issue. We were talking about refugees and Asylum seekers up until now.

I believe that if an illegal immigrant applies for asylum status, that that application should be fairly dealt with and that if the Asylum authorities deem the application to be in 'need' of asylum, that only a barbaric and racially exlcusionary society would deny that application, don't you?

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I consider the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in Ireland in 2003 were pregnant at their time of application to smack of births-for-citizenship.

Or they could of realised that their child was in danger and left the country? You have actual proof of this otherwise? or just your reality?

Anyway maths for dummies.

58% of the females, how many of the 7% that were accepted were pregnant women? Come on Arcade, you apparantly know. Tell us.

Yes, so the mother doesn't automatically get citizenship too (though this WAS the case before January 2003), but in truth, many will still get it as they put down roots and gain institutional sympathy from the authorities.

You are condtridicting yourself (as usual). Either they get citzenship because of the kids or they don't.

If they are getting sympathy, why did so many recently leave thier family of children here to have a better life then bring them back with them?

This Nigerian woman probably had the child with citizenship in mind. She most likely arrived before the referendum.

Your just incredible. Do you have some kind of pyshic power to know this?

I say that based on the fact that there has been a large drop in asylum-claims this year.

Again your inability to read what people are saying to already is just astounding. If you bother to read back, you would see that all the Asylum requests for the newly joined countries to the EU have been dismissed.

We have read LOADS of newspaper reports on citizenship-motivated births. I will post links to articles in the press about this if people here want.

No you have. Why not post them then.

I reply that they are hardly going to admit to it!

I believe that 48% of Asylum seekers are from an alternate dimension, but if you ask them they will deny it. :rolleyes:

You don't have any proof do you.

I greatly sympathise with persons from the Third World, but I cannot understand why immigrants from there cannot remain in Spain or Italy where they first landed.

If you bothered to read the links posted, you would know that the vast majority of Asylum seekers stay in the first country they get to.

arcadegame2004

I will post such links shortly.

The Irish nation are NOT racist. However, we did not cause the problems of the Third World. I firmly believe that much of the blame for its problems lies with the former colonial powers and that as such, they should shoulder the vast bulk of the responsibility for asylum-seekers.

But let me add something. These nations themselves have a responsibility to themselves to help build the economices and democracies in their own countries. It is NOT good enough for them to just say stuff like "The West did this/that when they ruled us therefore they must let us all in". Their Governments need to cop on to themselves and stop wasting our aid to them on wars and mansions.

gandalf

I think you said that you would back up your assertions before arcade and I do not remember seeing them. How about putting the links on this thread in the next 24 hours. If they aren't there I'll ban you.

arcadegame2004

Do you realise that the birth rate in Nigeria is 34.8/1000 ?

IN Nigeria yes. But they don't need to come to Ireland for safety. It takes 9 months for a pregnancy to go to term. These women have already crossed several EU national boundaries before getting here. 80% of our asylum-seekers get here via NI, and that excludes those crossing the Irish Sea from Britain. If the English languiage is an issue, why don't they stay in Britain?

Or they could of realised that their child was in danger and left the country? You have actual proof of this otherwise? or just your reality?

But their child hasn't even been born at the time they leave Nigeria or other countries, so the unborn child cannot be in "danger" at the time the mother leaves Nigeria or wherever.

"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"?

Now Gandalf:

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/04/23/story803823476.asp
Martin warned of citizenship scam in 2002
By Fionnán Sheahan, Political Correspondent
MICHEÁL MARTIN was warned by a leading maternity doctor that the majority of heavily pregnant Nigerian women arriving in Ireland were paying €7,500 to become citizenship tourists.The health minister was alerted to the operation of the scam by a consultant at the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin in September 2002, around the time when Justice Minister Michael McDowell met with the heads of Dublin's three main maternity hospitals to discuss the non-nationals problem...
Mr McDowell claimed yesterday that up to half of non-EU nationals giving birth in this country do it to gain Irish citizenship for their children.

Nigerians make up the largest group of non-EU national mothers giving birth in the country.

Last year 1,515 Nigerians gave birth in the National Maternity Hospital at Holles Street and the Rotunda Hospital alone.

The Irish Examiner understands that in his letter to Mr Martin, the Rotunda consultant expressed serious concerns about the pressures placed on the hospital system by the dramatic increase in the number of deliveries by non-nationals.

While also drawing the minister's attention to the dangers of mothers arriving late in pregnancy with no medical case histories, the consultant said he was aware that Nigerians in particular were abusing the rules in this country. "It is common knowledge now that most of the Nigerian women who arrive in the later stages of pregnancy have paid in the order of £5,000 to some agency for the information which allows them to use our health system," he wrote.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/06/01/story336136730.asp

Citizenship tourism not only in Dublin
By Catherine Shanahan
CITIZENSHIP tourism, where pregnant women travel to Ireland solely for the purpose of gaining citizenship for their child, is not confined to Dublin’s maternity hospitals.Health Minister Micheál Martin yesterday claimed that hospitals in Drogheda and in the Southern Health Board (SHB) had also come under pressure from pregnant non-nationals availing of the automatic right of citizenship to a child born on the island of Ireland.

Ireland is the only EU country to grant this right.

Figures supplied yesterday by the Department of Health showed that 1,111 births in the SHB’s maternity hospitals last year were to non-nationals. Mr Martin said approximately half were to asylum seekers. In the North Eastern Health Board, where the Mosney centre is located, births to non-nationals went from 560 in 2002 to 688 in 2003. However, the figures for January to March this year show a significant decrease from 204 in 2003 to 104 in 2004.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/05/27/story919409416.asp

Revealed: proof of citizenship tourism

By Fionnán Sheahan, Political Correspondent
DIRECT evidence of "citizenship tourism" is revealed in documentation obtained by the Irish Examiner.The correspondence shows the Government was informed last summer that an increasing number of non-nationals from Eastern European countries and Arab states were attempting to book places in maternity hospital before travelling to this country for delivery.

The letter of warning was sent to Health Minister Micheál Martin and Justice Minister Michael McDowell by the Master of the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Declan Keane.

Last night, Dr Keane said the practice of non-national parents seeking advance bookings had declined since then, but the number of non-EU nationals coming to avail of the lax citizenship laws continues to increase.

The documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act support Mr McDowell's claim that citizenship tourism is a growing phenomenon that needs to be closed off through the forthcoming referendum...


Attached to the letter is a fax from a Ukrainian oil industry businessman, Victor Tkachenko, seeking to book in his pregnant wife for delivery later in the year and also seeking advice on when she has to arrive in Ireland for her first appointment, the medical documents required, the duration of the stay for delivery, the cost of the service and visa support.

"It seems regrettable that since the Supreme Court decision earlier this year there has been no decrease in the number of non-nationals attending Ireland, and Dublin in particular. In fact the numbers only continue to increase," Dr Keane wrote on July 24.

Last night, Dr Keane said the number of these letters has dropped off as the word has gone out that these bookings are not accepted.

Dr Keane also said he had contacted the ambassador of one of the Arab states requesting that his embassy staff stop assisting citizens from that country in making advance bookings.

Primarily concerned about the medical dangers for heavily pregnant women travelling long distances and the pressures these often complicated births are putting on hospitals, Dr Keane said he believes up to half of the non-EU nationals giving birth at the hospital are attempting to avail of the citizenship laws particularly wealthy Eastern Europeans and Nigerians.

"The only difference is they don't phone ahead, they just show up," he said.

The number of non-national births at Holles Street has risen from 21% in 2003 to 24% in the first four months of 2004.

Contacted yesterday by the Irish Examiner at his Odessa office, Mr Tkachenko said he ultimately decided not to send his wife to Ireland to give birth, as his primary motivation was the quality of medical care.

Describing the passport provision as "an additional plus" to the Irish system, he said he had associates whose wives did come to Ireland to give birth, solely to avail of the citizenship laws.

"I know two acquaintances whose main reason was to get a passport for their child," he said.

Saying Ireland's citizenship laws were well known abroad in his experience, Mr Tkachenko said the mothers in these cases returned to Russia and the Ukraine after giving birth.

"Of course they did. They just wanted to have a second type of passport in the family," he said.

Citizenship tourists 'hit maternity services'

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/05/28/story650206696.aspBy

By Fionnán Sheahan, Political Correspondent
NON-NATIONAL women arriving in this country in the latter stages of pregnancy continues to place immense pressures on maternity hospitals, a leading maternity consultant said last night.Consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Paul Byrne wrote to Micheál Martin in 2002 to alert him to the worsening situation caused by so-called citizenship tourists and their impact on services at the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin.

Stressing that his sole motivation was a concern for the health and well being of patients, Mr Byrne said last night that the situation has not changed in the past two years.

"The idea of my letter was to alert them to what is going on. It was a relentless increase and it is still going up. The situation that causes us the problems are the people who are flying in during the latter stages of pregnancy. These are not Filipino nurses. They are not Brazilian meat factory workers or others working in this country," he said last night.

Mr Byrne's letter from September 2002, obtained by the Irish Examiner under the Freedom of Information Act, was prompted by an incident at the time where a professional South African woman, who was pregnant with quads, arrived just 36 hours before going into premature labour.

In his letter he also said it was common knowledge that Nigerian women arriving in the latter stages of pregnancy were paying £5,000 to an agency to come here.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner last night, Mr Byrne said that while the number of non-national births was now evenly spread across the three maternity hospitals in Dublin, doctors were dealing with extremely difficult cases, sometimes involving HIV, TB, malaria, sickle cell disease and serious complications.

"When all this started, the textbooks of obstetrics didn't deal with problems from African countries. We have had very complex cases," he said.

The number of non-national births at the hospital has more than doubled since 2000 and as it continues to rise, Mr Byrne says a large number of cases can be ascribed to citizenship tourism.

"Anybody who says it is not happening just doesn't know what it is happening," he said.

Supporting the Government's plans to close off the perceived automatic citizenship loophole in the forthcoming referendum, Dr Byrne said Ireland appeared to be a back door into the EU.

Even the Nigerian President told Bertie Ahern that our citizenship-laws were being abused by Nigerians.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

"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"?

For a start I notice the Examiner (are you serious?) manged to actually not quote any figures or relievence in those articles. It didn't make a difference between legal non-national and illegal non-nationals, and the difference between later term pergnencies.

You don't work for the Examiner do you :rolleyes:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0422/47671258HM1CITIZENS.html

However, the statistics show that in 2003, just 442 births in the two largest Dublin maternity hospitals were to non-EU nationals who either booked into the hospital late or arrived without booking at all

Based on these figures, best estimates suggest that between the Rotunda and Holles Street hospitals there was roughly one birth a day to women arriving late in pregnancy - the category to which so-called "citizenship tourists" belong.

Also all of these are irreleivent to your point unless you can tell us this figure -

The number of illegal, non-nationals, who have been accepted for citizenship because they had a child here.

I remember seeing that it is something like 6,000 for both legal and non-legal since 1998 but I could be wrong.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Irish nation are NOT racist.

Arcade your racism comes from the fact that you assume the majority of these asylum-seekers are attempting to swindle the system, commit crime against the nation of Ireland.

You have never shown any statistics that show the proportion of asylum-seekers that actually are swindling the system. For example, to show your point about asylum-seekers using citizenship tourism you simple said the total number of asylum-seekers since 1998, and then said a lot of them are abusing the system. You offered no proof of this, as if we were just supposed to believe it because they were foreigners and their for predisposed to abusing well-fare systems.

For example -

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Yes a tiny amount of people come over here to get EU citizenship for their kids.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

Here you use the total number of asylum-seekers as if they all must be going here for citizenship tourism. You have no proof of this, it is your assumption. At the same time you don't seem to assume that every US tourist is coming here to abuse our citizenship laws.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

An assumption that we have to stop people from the Third World, because given the chance, they would all come over here if we don't. There is also the lesser assumption that they would do anything (eg citizenship tourism) to get over here, so we better stop them.

Sorry Arcade but that is racist. You are sterotyping people based on their country of origin. You have never called for holiday visas to be restricted from people from America or UK. You have never called for legal work permits to be restricted. I can only assume, from your posts, that that is because you do not believe these people will abuse our system. So to claim you are worried about foriegners is rather laughable. You are worried about Third World forigeners.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I consider the fact that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving in Ireland in 2003 were pregnant at their time of application to smack of births-for-citizenship.

Again, you do not provide the statistics for the number that actually use this as a means to citizenship. You have no idea what the real number is, but it is the assumption that these people must be breaking the law. The number of EU and First World non-nationals have children in Ireland is something like a 100 times larger, but that stirs no objection from you. Why? Is it because you feel First World people dont set out to abuse our system where as third world people, simply for being third world, do set out to abuse our system.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

many will still get it as they put down roots and gain institutional sympathy from the authorities.

You have repeatly said you do not object to citizenship if a person has lived here for a long time, and you preferr that granting of citzenship over simply those being born here. So what is wrong with a Nigerian woman who "puts down roots"

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It is because we were treated badly by foreigners that we don't ever intend allowing foreigners to take us over again, including by outnumbering us.

"Take us over" Do I need to go on...

arcadegame2004

The 58% figure was repeatedly, nay EXHAUSTIVELY quoted by me with a link during the threads on the Citizenship-referendum during the actual campaign, and I was not the first to post such a link. I think it was Vorbis but I am unsure. I am looking for it.

My reason for believing that the motivations of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland is economic and nothing else is not race-based. It is economy-based. For centuries the poor have migrated to rich countries. So it is reasonable to surmise then, that people leaving safe countries to come to Ireland and then claiming asylum are doing so for economic-reasons. But that is NOTwhat the asylum-process is supposed to be for. Hence, claiming asylum for reasons that are in reality economic and economic alone, amounts to a swindle as far as I am concerned, since it amounts to telling lies to the authorities.

Here you use the total number of asylum-seekers as if they all must be going here for citizenship tourism. You have no proof of this, it is your assumption. At the same time you don't seem to assume that every US tourist is coming here to abuse our citizenship laws.

Why would they? The US is far richer than us. Why would Americans want to seek legal loopholes to stay here? 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. Certainly, an asylum-seeker who has already crossed the UK before arriving in Ireland cannot fairly use the "language-barrier" argument for coming here.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The 58% figure was repeatedly, nay EXHAUSTIVELY quoted by me with a link during the threads on the Citizenship-referendum during the actual campaign, and I was not the first to post such a link. I think it was Vorbis but I am unsure. I am looking for it.

I am not disputing the 58% figure. I am asking you why do you assume they are all using this to get citizenship? Do you assume every non-national having a child in Ireland is abusing the system, or just the asylum seekers?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

My reason for believing that the motivations of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland is economic and nothing else is not race-based. It is economy-based.

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