The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

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.

MadsL

In the states at the moment, but keeping tabs on this thread...

Whilst I wait with bated breath for Arcade's masterful re-interpretation of the Chen case, can I ask him if he now withdraws his statements about Muslims being terrorists that we do not want here. Or can I assume that my post clarifying his argument stands.

So Arcade, do you still feel that Muslims are terrorists??

Hobbes

smccarrick wrote:

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.........

Godwin never mentioned anything about the debate being over or the thread being closed. Orginal rule.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

arcadegame2004

Whilst I wait with bated breath for Arcade's masterful re-interpretation of the Chen case, can I ask him if he now withdraws his statements about Muslims being terrorists that we do not want here. Or can I assume that my post clarifying his argument stands.

Could you please withdraw your statement that I said that. Quote where I said that.

arcadegame2004

Indeed. Just like Nice.

Well Nice was 53%-47% hardly comparable with the 80% in the Citizenship-referendum.

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

It's a totally different issue. The Citizenship issue relates to the difference between our laws on citizenship and those of the rest of Europe in a crucial respect making us vulnerable to abuse of our system in a manner which at the very least has the potential to place high cost-burdens on us. I don't see how abortion relates to this.

MrPudding

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well Nice was 53%-47% hardly comparable with the 80% in the Citizenship-referendum.



It's a totally different issue. The Citizenship issue relates to the difference between our laws on citizenship and those of the rest of Europe in a crucial respect making us vulnerable to abuse of our system in a manner which at the very least has the potential to place high cost-burdens on us. I don't see how abortion relates to this.

One of the main points that you kept arguing was that our laws were different from that of Europe. "Bring our laws into line with the rest of Europe," was all we heard from you. Either you want laws harmonised or you don't. If it is good for one law it shoul dbe good for all. While we are at it maybe we should harmonise taxes as well. Why don't we have a European wide corporation tax? What? No? Laws should only be harmonised when it is benificial to us (or at least perceived by some to be so.)

I am still waiting for the evidence that the only reason women coming to Ireland get pregnant is to claim citizenship for their kids.

MrP

The_Conductor

Hobbes wrote:

Godwin never mentioned anything about the debate being over or the thread being closed. Orginal rule.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

From Wikipedia- the online encyclopaedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

arcadegame2004

Either you want laws harmonised or you don't. If it is good for one law it shoul dbe good for all. While we are at it maybe we should harmonise taxes as well. Why don't we have a European wide corporation tax? What? No? Laws should only be harmonised when it is benificial to us (or at least perceived by some to be so.)

I want SOME laws harmonised but not all.

lucernarian

I was unaware that I was invoking this "Godwin's Law". I don't fully understand this law but I cannot say anymore in case i dig a deeper hole for myself

MrPudding

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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

Again I ask you, are you going to provide a link to proff of this assertion? If you are unable to then you should retract it.

MrP

Hobbes

smccarrick wrote:

From Wikipedia- the online encyclopaedia:

Your just posting what I said.