The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

arcadegame2004

US invades another country, Russia tries to stop a territory within its own borders from seceeding, and its Russia who's in the wrong?

Well they only became part of Russia in the 1800's and not by their own choice. Kind of like Ireland and the Act of Union. We didn't accept being part of the Union with Britain, even though internationally Ireland was recognised as part of the UK. So why should it be any different for the Chechens?

Oh and Hobbes, I would direct the same "can't find them on the map" charge at you, if you seriously believe there are wars going on in Nigeria, Romania, Ukraine or Moldova.

sceptre

syke wrote:

To be fair, they're unlikely to be eligable for asylum/refugee status here as European Union law stipulates that those seeking asylum in an EU country must make their application at the first port of call.

We've had that one out with wackyboy and in fact you can claim asylum whenever and wherever you like, though you may be repatriated (for want of a better word) to the country of your entry point under the Dublin II regulations (or under the Dublin Convention if it involves Denmark). That's the legal position. The opinion of what people reckon "should happen" may be (and in the case of some people is) totally different.

GuanYin

sceptre wrote:

We've had that one out with wackyboy and in fact you can claim asylum whenever and wherever you like, though you may be repatriated (for want of a better word) to the country of your entry point under the Dublin II regulations (or under the Dublin Convention if it involves Denmark). That's the legal position. The opinion of what people reckon "should happen" may be (and in the case of some people is) totally different.

Hrmm, apologies for my misconception so.

While I'm in no way opposed to refugee's coming to Ireland and welcome multi-cutural society growth (and hence strongly oppose the referendum result and the government that proposed it), I do think that an open asylum policy (that is, choosing to seek asylum whereever you want rather than the first port of call) potentially leads to abuse of the system.

That said, people are entitled to want to relocate to the place that offers them the best opportunity, although if I was really in fear for my cvil rights, I wonder would I be as concerned about my destination so long as I was safe. Hopefully I'll never know.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Actually I would allow Chechens to stay here. Their situation would evidently be that of genuine refugees fleeing a warzone (unlike Nigerians, Romanians, Moldovans and Ukrainians).

You have absolutely no idea what you're on about. Go away and read the Refugee Act and point out where it says only people fleeing a warzone are considered genuine refugees.

bonkey

Typedef wrote:

I'd strenously dispute their validity, in the strongest possible terms.

What? You're saying that they weren't printed in papers? Because if not, then please go back and re-read what led to their being quoted here. Arcade said that we had all seen plenty of stories in the papers about Nigerian women having kids in Ireland, and he was called on it. He presented the articles.

Now either he's done exactly what he was asked to do, or he hasn't. Either papers did print these, or they didn't.

Whether or not the stories are true is a different issue, but they were posted purely and solely becuase someone questioned whether or not they existed.

Papers routinely embelish facts, or indeed, simply make facts up..

The figures posted in those articles are - to the best of my knowledge - all completely and entirely accurate. The comments attributed to people are - to the best of my knowledge - also correctly attributed, and there was never any claim of misrepresentatiion by the paper levelled by this paper.

What is wrong with the articles is that the people quoting figures are misrepresenting what those figures indicate, and the paper utterly fails to draw any reference to this point at all.

jc

therecklessone

sliabh wrote:

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Cheers. I tend to muddy the waters at times with the language I use.

sliabh wrote:

But all this is a long way from the original discussion on Irish citizenship!

First thing I thought of when I came back online was "how the hell will I get this thread back on topic?"

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

I hate to keep harping on about this but can you please post evidence of this or withdraw it. It is a very simple request. You have stated something as a fact but have, despite numerour requests, failed to provide evidence. Either back it up or withdraw it. Cries of "they will hardly admit it" will not cut it. You stated it as a fact and as such you need to back it up or withdraw it.

Also when will the promised post on Chen arrive. I can barely wait?

MrP

MadsL

I don't have much time (good movies to watch)...but...

1. Can't believe arcade's double-think...

Muslim terrorists = bad
Chechen terrorists = good

Keep going, maybe we can get to black = white.

bonkey

MadsL wrote:

1. Can't believe arcade's double-think...
Muslim terrorists = bad
Chechen terrorists = good

Keep going, maybe we can get to black = white.

I'd rather we tried getting back on topic.

jc

arcadegame2004

I don't have much time (good movies to watch)...but...

1. Can't believe arcade's double-think...

Muslim terrorists = bad
Chechen terrorists = good

Keep going, maybe we can get to black = white.

Show me where I said that Chechen terrorists were good? Those people involved in the school-hostage taking and killings of innocent Russian men, women and children are the most evil scum of the earth and deserve nothing but hatred. But so too must the genocide by the Russians. And the latter is on a far greater scale. If the Western media were allowed into Chechnya, then belief the horror we feel about the events in Beslan would be replicated on a daily basis in Chechnya with respect to the suffering of the remaining civilian-population there. Then we wouls see that there are Chechen victims too. But Putin doesn't want us to see that, of course.

Now, I promised to explain my reasoning for my interpretation of the Chen ruling. Very well. Here goes:

What do all of us, in both the "Yes" and "No" camps agree on? We agree at the very least, the Chen case allowed the rich to gain residency in 24 other EU states on the basis of having a child born in Ireland. I include the fathers in this, since Chen's husband was also granted residency. It should be noted that no specific claim was made by the Advocate-General that the rights of EU residency conferred about the Chen family excluded residency within Ireland. This is an example of the vagueness of the judgement to a degree - of how it poses new questions to which the answers are unclear. I feel that pre-emption is sometimes necessary in matters of national-policy. Hence, even the possibility that Chen MAY not have precluded EU-wide residency including in Ireland for those using the baby-rule was sufficient reason for the referendum.

Granted, Chen was wealthy. But how can we be CERTAIN that a poor Chen would not have still gained EU-residency from the ECJ? Reference was clearly made in the ECJ ruling to her wealth and how she would not be a burden on the State. But also, the Irish and therefore EU citizenship of her child was a crucial factor in the case. Both together were cited as reasons to grant Chen her residency and that of her family. But does this automatically mean that if one of these criteria were present in the absence of the other, that residency throughout the EU would not have been granted? Again, the pre-emption principle applies here for me. The risk was there. Especially when you consider that judges die and the new ones replacing them may have different ideas on such matters.

I suspect that the Irish electorate had similar concerns when they voted "Yes". I do not accept that we voted "Yes" out of racist inclinations. Another factor was concern at the pressure placed on the hospitals and other infrastructure and the SW system if such a pull-factor for immigration to Ireland were allowed to be retained. The fact (and statistical evidence was already provided by me and others that the followign statistic is true) that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant at the time of their asylum-application in 2003 is a correlation that many would regard with suspicion. Including by me. Now some others on this forum will insist that fertility-rates or loca birth-rates in the countries of origin of such women is the real explanation for the high birth rates of the asylum-seeking women, and they are entitled to their views. I just think that it is human-nature to take advantage of systems that can help further their economic wellbeing, and my gut instinct thus tells me that my suspicions of the motivations of a lot of these pregnant asylum-seekers is wellfounded.

ecksor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I feel that pre-emption is sometimes necessary in matters of national-policy. Hence, even the possibility that Chen MAY not have precluded EU-wide residency including in Ireland for those using the baby-rule was sufficient reason for the referendum.

Granted, Chen was wealthy. But how can we be CERTAIN that a poor Chen would not have still gained EU-residency from the ECJ?

Wasn't the point of you mentioning that case to begin with that it showed us that the system could be abused by foreign nationals to secure residency when others were saying that there was no evidence of this. Now you're admitting that there's no evidence but saying the equivilent of "Ah lads, you never know". Why not just say that to begin with, Chen seems irrelevant by your logic of "who knows what the judges of the future will do". Well guess what, who knows what the politicians of the future will do and we gave them power to legislate on this!

If you had waited until a judge had ruled in the way you feared then you'd have a point (whether people agreed with it or not being another issue). However, the country can afford to let a few people abuse any loophole before closing it instead of constantly chasing bogeymen such as the one you just introduced us to here.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Granted, Chen was wealthy. But how can we be CERTAIN that a poor Chen would not have still gained EU-residency from the ECJ?

What we can be certain of arcade - and which is contrary to what you asserted - is that the Chen ruling does not open any doors. It does not pose any threat, nor does it give reason to believe that any doors will or should be opened.

It is very, very clear. All the Chen judgement really did was clarify that the rules which allow dependant family members residency, as long as they are not dependant on the state should also allow a family unit to remain together, regardless of who is dependant on whom, under the same precondition that those granted residency will place no burden on the state.

Reference was clearly made in the ECJ ruling to her wealth and how she would not be a burden on the State. But also, the Irish and therefore EU citizenship of her child was a crucial factor in the case. Both together were cited as reasons to grant Chen her residency and that of her family.

But together formed the necessary combination of factors, yes. Note - both together formed the necessary combination of factors. Seeing where the empasis is here?

But does this automatically mean that if one of these criteria were present in the absence of the other, that residency throughout the EU would not have been granted?

Yes, it does.

More accurately, the Chen ruling does not in any way imply or suggest that had there been an entirely non-EU family, or a set of would-be-state-dependant relatives, that the result would have been the same.

At best you can argue that the Chen ruling doesn't cover every single eventuality. However, to argue that the Chen ruling makes any sort of implication on any situation other than the type of situation it expressly limited itself to describing is blatantly false.

Again, the pre-emption principle applies here for me. The risk was there. Especially when you consider that judges die and the new ones replacing them may have different ideas on such matters.

So Chen is risky because someone else could rule something else on a situation that is different to the Chen case????? And how would that be any different if the Chen case had been thrown out of court, and the Chen's told "hoppit - you're not wanted".

That still would have "exposed" us to the "risk" that some different judge, in some different case, with different details at some different point in time, would decide to rule otherwise.

Indeed, our own constitutional change doesn't protect us either...because some leglisature may someday be drawn up with will give all these damned foreigners citizenship again....despite it being what you say is against the wishes of the Irish people.

So does that mean that the outcome of the Irish referendum opens us to risk as well???

I suspect that the Irish electorate had similar concerns when they voted "Yes".

I would submit that if they did, then we need to seriously re-address the teaching of the fundamentals of logic and reasoning in our school systems.

I do not accept that we voted "Yes" out of racist inclinations.

Hardly surprising.

Those who did vote yes out of racist inclinations would not accept such an allegation either.

Regardless, anyone who claims that "one side" voted because of an issue, or that "one side" did not allow any given issue to influence their vote is kidding themselves.
There is no single issue that was the reason why everyone on one side voted that way. Everyone has their own reasons, and those reasons will differ from person to person.

So to say that all or none who voted Yes were racially motivated is just plain wrong.

Another factor was concern at the pressure placed on the hospitals and other infrastructure and the SW system if such a pull-factor for immigration to Ireland were allowed to be retained.

Pressure which was so critical that the government have raced to deal with the issue by bringing a referendum to vote in what could be record time, then sitting on their asses and doing SFA about it afterwards for months???

Pressure which was based on numbers which have been repeatedly and consistently shown to be misused?

The fact (and statistical evidence was already provided by me and others that the followign statistic is true) that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant at the time of their asylum-application in 2003 is a correlation that many would regard with suspicion.

Yes indeed.

And but what happened when you were then asked for further information to clarify the relevance of this 58% (such as standard rate of pregnancies in asylum seekers from a comparable origin but who are in a different country...such as the length of time these people were in the country before their application was processed....such as how many of them were allowed to remain here long enough to give birth because of the inability of our government to improve the resources processing claims....such as the number of these people who remained in the country and gave birth here.....)???

What happened? There was a sum total of absolutely no corroborative numbers available from anywhere. None. Not a one. Just some insistence that it can't all be normal or explained away.....

I just think that it is human-nature to take advantage of systems that can help further their economic wellbeing, and my gut instinct thus tells me that my suspicions of the motivations of a lot of these pregnant asylum-seekers is wellfounded.

At least you're finally admitting that what is driving you is purely and solely instinct. Maybe you could remember this in furture when people start asking you to distinguish once again between fact and opinion.

You are offering opinion. It is your opinion that these people are abusing the system in the quantities you hint at...nothing more and nothing less.

jc

omnicorp

To rejuvinate the debate I ask,
Was the Referendum really neccasary?
I haven't seen an answer to this yet.

mike65

from unison.ie

THE country's largest maternity hospital has seen a dramatic drop in the numbers of mothers from outside the EU coming to give birth here in the wake of the citizenship referendum, it emerged yesterday.

Dr Declan Keane, who has finished his term as Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Holles St in Dublin said there has now been a major reversal in trends.

Dr Keane and the masters of the other two main Dublin maternity hospitals, the Rotunda and the Coombe, became embroiled in controversy in the run-up to last summer's poll on citizenship rights, after it was claimed they were seeking a change in the law due to the pressures they were under.

Dr Keane said before the referendum that 16pc of the deliveries at the hospital were to non-EU women and 5pc to mothers from other EU countries.

Since the referendum, mothers from the EU now account for 16pc of births, while those outside the EU make up just 5pc, he told irishhealth.com.

The masters strongly denied their meetings with ministers before the poll were designed to get a referendum tightening citizenship rights. They said they had simply wanted to highlight the pressures the hospitals were under due to increased numbers. The referendum was proposed by Justice Minister Michael McDowell to end what he termed the incentive for mothers from other countries to come here to give birth.

Draw what conclusions you will from this.

Mike.

GuanYin

mike65 wrote:

from unison.ie



Draw what conclusions you will from this.

Mike.

Once again no figures have been made public besides anecdotal reports from the masters.

Incidently, if you are going to compare before and after stats, you might want to do so over the same periods of time. The 6 months since the referendum is hardly long enough to give a stattistical comparison of trends.

BAsically, its a press release to take the pressure of biggotry accusations away from them, especially at the ends of their terms.

arcadegame2004

Spot on Mike65. It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers.

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Spot on Mike65. It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers.

which fall in numbers is this? Can you prove that the 6 month post referendum numbers are significantly lower than every and any pre-referendum 6 month period?

IF not, there is no difference.

arcadegame2004

syke wrote:

which fall in numbers is this? Can you prove that the 6 month post referendum numbers are significantly lower than every and any pre-referendum 6 month period?

IF not, there is no difference.

The doctors of the Rotunda have mentioned the fall in births to non-EU nationals as mike65 said above.

I think for people on the "No" side of the argument, who in some constitutuencies were only 14% of the electorate, no statistics will ever be enough to prove them wrong. Their position is basically motivated by an actively pro-immigration ideology, and in democracy they are entitled to hold to that position. However, in a democracy they must also bow to the will of the people expressed in the referendum.

Sparks

The masters have reported a change in percentages, not absolute figures Arcade.
BTW, if the hospitals are swamped with non-EU nationals before the referendum, and swamped with EU nationals after the referendum, what bloody good did it do? The hospital's still swamped.

Dr Bolouswki

I haven't read the whole thing - but am I way off the mark in saying I don't care who comes in (indeed I welcome it) , as long as they don't just sponge off the state?

arcadegame2004

Sparks wrote:

The masters have reported a change in percentages, not absolute figures Arcade.
BTW, if the hospitals are swamped with non-EU nationals before the referendum, and swamped with EU nationals after the referendum, what bloody good did it do? The hospital's still swamped.

I never said that the referendum alone was the solution. It is part of it. Harmonisation of Western EU-15 controls on immigration from the applicant states may also be needed.

Sparks

I still maintain arcade that I have yet to see any figures on immigration that satisfy me that there was such a serious problem that we had to give FF carte blanche to change our constitution.

arcadegame2004

Sparks wrote:

I still maintain arcade that I have yet to see any figures on immigration that satisfy me that there was such a serious problem that we had to give FF carte blanche to change our constitution.

I practically tortured my fingers giving statistical information on that during the referendum. The "No" arguments were all emotional and based on the R word. If you are going to criticise the "Yes" side on statistics then you should also criticise those ( or the lack of them ) from the "No" side. Their campaign was a very poor one, and deserved the crushing defeat it got.

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The doctors of the Rotunda have mentioned the fall in births to non-EU nationals as mike65 said above.

I think for people on the "No" side of the argument, who in some constitutuencies were only 14% of the electorate, no statistics will ever be enough to prove them wrong. Their position is basically motivated by an actively pro-immigration ideology, and in democracy they are entitled to hold to that position. However, in a democracy they must also bow to the will of the people expressed in the referendum.

They mentioned afall in births over a 6 month period. Statistically, you cannot compare this 6 month period with all the time previously and draw any conclusions. If they said the birthrates were lower than EVERY 6 month period pre-referendum, they might have something but they don't. There are no supporting figures.


Who said I was on either side, I'm just commenting on the details presented, which are invalid, I'm on the side of factual informed reporting and decision making. Neither of these were present in the last referendum for the general public.

Why are you classing people as pro and against? The simple point of contention is the validity of the statement above, which if you take it on a statistical scientific view is, in its phrasing here, inaccurate and misleading.

Do you understand the idea of statsitical significance and why it doesn't apply to this situation?

If I see between 3 and 10 red cars on my way to work every day for a month, giving on average a sighting of 6 red cars a day, change the route I walk to work and then the next day see 4 red cars, it doesn't mean that the amount of red cars on the road are any less than the previous month.

pete

tortured your fingers? tortured everyone else more like :rolleyes:

again you seem to think people here have short memories. you were regularly called on your distortions and exaggerations. Passports for "billions of third world children", anyone? or how about "at these rates we'll be overrun in x years"?

Dr Keane said before the referendum that 16pc of the deliveries at the hospital were to non-EU women and 5pc to mothers from other EU countries.

Since the referendum, mothers from the EU now account for 16pc of births, while those outside the EU make up just 5pc, he told irishhealth.com.

I'm no expert, and i don't intend to try to twist these figures to suit me, but I wonder did the new EU accession countries factor into these stats? Would mothers from these countries be counted in the pre-referendum non-EU 16pc but in the post-referendum factor into the EU 16pc?

arcadegame2004

pete wrote:

tortured your fingers? tortured everyone else more like :rolleyes:

again you seem to think people here have short memories. you were regularly called on your distortions and exaggerations. Passports for "billions of third world children", anyone? or how about "at these rates we'll be overrun in x years"?



I'm no expert, and i don't intend to try to twist these figures to suit me, but I wonder did the new EU accession countries factor into these stats? Would mothers from these countries be counted in the pre-referendum non-EU 16pc but in the post-referendum factor into the EU 16pc?

I accept that more detailed statistics on the post-referendum period would be helpful. We need to remember that the EU has enlarged, and this might influence the statistics. However, I am confident that far fewer asylum-seekers are now coming here in late pregnancy for the cynical agenda of increasing their chances of staying here. But my concerns go beyond that. We need to harmonise EU-15 rules on immigration from the new EU-10, so that Ireland will not be put under undue strain with respect to cheap labour influxes. The unholy alliance between those in business who want more cheap-labour to exploit, and those on the Irish Left who want a new constituency to vote for them on the basis that Labour/Greens/SF etc. won't deport them needs to be defeated.

If I see between 3 and 10 red cars on my way to work every day for a month, giving on average a sighting of 6 red cars a day, change the route I walk to work and then the next day see 4 red cars, it doesn't mean that the amount of red cars on the road are any less than the previous month.

It doesn't but there is more than one doctor in this country, in case you hadn't noticed :rolleyes:

mike65

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Spot on Mike65. It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers.

Hang-on there fella! I just reprinted the article, I'm not expressing a view.

Mike.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I accept that more detailed statistics on the post-referendum period would be helpful. We need to remember that the EU has enlarged, and this might influence the statistics.

Really?

I could have sworn you said

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It's obvious that the removal of the carrot of citizenship-through-pregnancy has caused a fall in the numbers.

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It doesn't but there is more than one doctor in this country, in case you hadn't noticed :rolleyes:

So? Whats that gotto do with anything?

Ok, you have had trouble with analogies so let me explain it simply.

if we get between 30-100 non-EU births per 6 months in Ireland over the past 10 pre-referendum years, averaging at 50 per 6 month period, and in the 6 months post-referendum we see 40 non-EU births, it doesn't mean that the referendum has done anything. It just means that is one of the lower months.

If we looked over the same 10 year period, or even if we saw a lower figure than any of the 6 month periods (say 20 non-EU births) that might indicate something, but the details given are vague and give no indication as to anything that is happening. Until we see those figures, all evidence is anecdotal and considering the source, rather dubious.

arcadegame2004

pete wrote:

Really?

I could have sworn you said

Both are true! More detailed statistics are needed. However, I choose to interpret mike65's statistics as supporting my views on the logical outcome of removing the Citizenship-Tourists Charter from the constitution. That is my right.

So? Whats that gotto do with anything?

Ok, you have had trouble with analogies so let me explain it simply.

if we get between 30-100 non-EU births per 6 months in Ireland over the past 10 pre-referendum years, averaging at 50 per 6 month period, and in the 6 months post-referendum we see 40 non-EU births, it doesn't mean that the referendum has done anything. It just means that is one of the lower months.

If we looked over the same 10 year period, or even if we saw a lower figure than any of the 6 month periods (say 20 non-EU births) that might indicate something, but the details given are vague and give no indication as to anything that is happening. Until we see those figures, all evidence is anecdotal and considering the source, rather dubious.

I think that my knowledge of human-nature, and how humans will try to advance their economic position, tells me that the 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age who were pregnant on arrival in this State had citizenship in mind. The Nigeria President told Bertie that the Irish citizenship law was well known in Nigeria and was a major reason for the immigration from Nigerian to Ireland. He should know he comes from there after all. You are entitled to vigorously disagree with me but I don't think I am capable of being persuaded unless by detailed statistics. So roll on the detailed statistics. I agree they should be forthcoming. But even if they do support my case no doubt pin-pricked holes will be drilled into them by the Irish Left. Oh well!
:rolleyes: