"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

Not the claim you we’re making though, is it?
A majority here support a change in citizenship law to allow for citizenship through birth and residency.

no they don't, they didn't in 2004 and don't now. You live in a bubble where you seem to think that non EU migration is overwhelmingly positive, when the facts state economically and socially otherwise.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no they don't, they didn't in 2004 and don't now. You live in a bubble where you seem to think that non EU migration is overwhelmingly positive, when the facts state economically and socially otherwise.

The polls say otherwise.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

The polls say otherwise.

Link to these polls that we can interpret how we like just as you do.

Eric Cartman

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Link to these polls that we can interpret how we like just as you do.

+1 , not voting for gemma o dogerty does not mean Ireland is voting for anchor babies. I also wont accept a poll from the morning star’s irish equivalent thejournal.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

They're actually not. I'm familiar with the case law surrounding this (and you actually got you're interpretation way off).

You're trying to tangentially imply that there was no link between the huge fall off in cases, and the 2003 judgement.

Did they all decide that the rain was too much for them in 2003 of all years? That must have been it. Or perhaps the fact that having a child born in an Irish hospital was now of limited defense against deportation? No, impossible, surely not.

The law didn’t effect the very scenario that the referendum was supposed to address - as typified by the Chen case. Anyone who intended using an asylum claim (or any other means of entering the jurisdiction), combined with an Irish birth, in 2002 to gain EU residency would have been able to use exactly the same mechanism in 2003. That’s the fact of the matter.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Link to these polls that we can interpret how we like just as you do.

https://www.image.ie/life/70-of-people-now-think-being-born-in-ireland-should-mean-an-automatic-right-to-citizenship-134463

https://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/news/polling-shows-importance-integration-measures-maintaining-irish-cead-mile-failte

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

https://www.image.ie/life/70-of-people-now-think-being-born-in-ireland-should-mean-an-automatic-right-to-citizenship-134463

https://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/news/polling-shows-importance-integration-measures-maintaining-irish-cead-mile-failte

lol the immigrant council of Ireland website, i wonder who they polled. You do give me a good laugh alastair i will give you that.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

The law didn’t effect the very scenario that the referendum was supposed to address - as typified by the Chen case. Anyone who intended using an asylum claim (or any other means of entering the jurisdiction), combined with an Irish birth, in 2002 to gain EU residency would have been able to use exactly the same mechanism in 2003. That’s the fact of the matter.

Oh my God. I'm sorry - you've never studied the law. That's ok, it's not your fault, but you're making up interpretations and scenarios here. And you're conflating and tying together discreet legal concepts.

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

https://www.image.ie/life/70-of-people-now-think-being-born-in-ireland-should-mean-an-automatic-right-to-citizenship-134463

https://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/news/polling-shows-importance-integration-measures-maintaining-irish-cead-mile-failte

But i thought the law didnt have any real impact ?
Why do we need to undo it....

Also i highly doubt you knew image magazine had that story, sounds like a quick google grab.

All those CEO’s and executives quotes from the immigrant industry in the second link is hillarious. Reads just like “bankers say bonuses definitely help banking”

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

lol the immigrant council of Ireland website, i wonder who they polled. You do give me a good laugh alastair i will give you that.

Read the report to see who the polling company polled. It’s there if you’re not so lazy.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

https://www.image.ie/life/70-of-people-now-think-being-born-in-ireland-should-mean-an-automatic-right-to-citizenship-134463

https://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/news/polling-shows-importance-integration-measures-maintaining-irish-cead-mile-failte

The Sunday times poll was taken 2 weeks after a few high profile cases of deporting children, what did you think the outcome of said poll would be. See alastair we can all interpret to suit our arguments. Im turning int you oh Jesus.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But i thought the law didnt have any real impact ?
Why do we need to undo it....

Also i highly doubt you knew image magazine had that story, sounds like a quick google grab.

All those CEO’s and executives quotes from the immigrant industry in the second link is hillarious. Reads just like “bankers say bonuses definitely help banking”

The ST poll was covered by a variety of media. Take your pick.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

The Sunday times poll was taken 2 weeks after a few high profile cases of deporting children, what did you think the outcome of said poll would be. See alastair we can all interpret to suit our arguments. Im turning int you oh Jesus.

Pretty difficult to interpret as anything other than a majority favouring a change in the law. As I said.

Eric Cartman

iebamm2580 wrote: »

The Sunday times poll was taken 2 weeks after a few high profile cases of deporting children, what did you think the outcome of said poll would be. See alastair we can all interpret to suit our arguments. Im turning int you oh Jesus.

Doesnt even mention the questioning methodology .

“Do you think those high profile case children should have been deported or given citizenship automatically” and “do you think somebody should be able to get off a plane , give birth and that kid is an irish citizen” produce the same box tick answer but would be answered completely different ways by most of the public

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

Oh my God. I'm sorry - you've never studied the law. That's ok, it's not your fault, but you're making up interpretations and scenarios here. And you're conflating and tying together discreet legal concepts.

The facts are still the facts, despite your sarcasm.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

Pretty difficult to interpret as anything other than a majority favouring a change in the law. As I said.

Alastair my friend you should know all polls can be interpreted as how one is feeling on a particular day.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Doesnt even mention the questioning methodology .

“Do you think those high profile case children should have been deported or given citizenship automatically” and “do you think somebody should be able to get off a plane , give birth and that kid is an irish citizen” produce the same box tick answer but would be answered completely different ways by most of the public

Feel free to actually reference the poll, rather than pull fictitious questions out of the air.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Alastair my friend you should know all polls can be interpreted as how one is feeling on a particular day.

And the outcome, on the day, was that a majority favour a change in the law.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

The facts are still the facts, despite your sarcasm.

The Chen case wasn't decided until late 2004 you dummy. Thus non-EU national parents of EU citizen children could not rely on Treaty rights to settle in another European country. So your scenario is wrong. And in any case the matter of controversy in the 2003 judgement was completely separate from the Chen case. Thus your post is wrong. And you've made a tit of yourself again.

You cant make up the law.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

And the outcome, on the day, was that a majority favour a change in the law.

No i dont interpret it like that and you shouldn't either, said id tell you how to interpret it since thats what you do to people who dont agree with you.

DelaneyIn

alastair wrote: »

Asylum claims had nothing to do with citizenship for children born here. In fact you could make the case that anyone seeking residency would be more likely to make an asylum claim after 2004, as the mechanism of residency through parenthood of an Irish child was removed. But clearly that didn’t happen. So the change in law had no consequence for asylum claims.

And the letter from the Masters on resources did nothing to initiate the referendum. Unsurprisingly the number of non national mothers giving birth in the maternity hospitals has not changed since before the referendum - it was 25% of births then, and still stands at 25% now.

58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon claiming asylum in the years prior to the referendum.

A staggering stat. Yet you claim that the law didn’t encourage economic migrants to claim asylum here?

You aren’t a serious poster.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

The Chen case wasn't decided until late 2004 you dummy. Thus non-EU national parents of EU citizen children could not rely on Treaty rights to settle in another EEA country. So your scenario is wrong. And in any case the matter of controversy in the 2003 judgement was completely separate from the Chen case. Thus your post is wrong. And you've made a tit of yourself again.

You cant make up the law.

Dummy? Tit? You seem a bit triggered.

The Chen case wasn’t decided, no - but it was certainly the extant law of the EU that parents of EU citizens were entitled residency rights in the EU in 2003 and 2004.

So - the very thing that you’re claiming was a ‘pull’ was unchanged for those two years. Fact.

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

And the outcome, on the day, was that a majority favour a change in the law.

Why are you so desperate for non EU migrants in this country when facts show that they are on balance detractors economically and socially. What benefit is there to allowing them in.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

No i dont interpret it like that and you shouldn't either, said id tell you how to interpret it since thats what you do to people who dont agree with you.

You can stick your head in the sand all you like.

Q. Do you feel that anyone born on the island of Ireland should be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship?

A. 71% - Yes.

Feel free to tell us how that represents anything more than a majority supporting the proposition.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why are you so desperate for non EU migrants in this country when facts show that they are on balance detractors economically and socially. What benefit is there to allowing them in.

With the exception of Asians, like the Chinese?

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why are you so desperate for non EU migrants in this country when facts show that they are on balance detractors economically and socially. What benefit is there to allowing them in.

Why are you so desperate to deny the awkward realities that run counter to your personal views?

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With the exception of Asians, like the Chinese?

Points based migration and propper channels are good enough, the chinese etc.. seem to have no issue with it, the only people desiring open borders and anchor babies seem to be the ones who know most of the african migrants they adore could never meet the requirements.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

You can stick your head in the sand all you like.

Q. Do you feel that anyone born on the island of Ireland should be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship?

A. 71% - Yes.

Feel free to tell us how that represents anything more than a majority supporting the proposition.

Thanks i will feel free to interpret a biased poll taking after some high profile media attention of children being deported that was designed to pull on heart strings , thank you for the privilege. I offer you the privilege of interpreting the poll as you feel fit to too alastair.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Thanks i will feel free to interpret a biased poll taking after some high profile media attention of children being deported that was designed to pull on heart strings , thank you for the privilege. I offer you the privilege of interpreting the poll as you feel fit to too alastair.

Nothing biased in that question. So you’ve really got nothing to undermine the clear preference of the majority polled.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

Dummy? Tit? You seem a bit triggered.

The Chen case wasn’t decided, no - but it was certainly the extant law of the EU that parents of EU citizens were entitled residency rights in the EU in 2003 and 2004.

So - the very thing that you’re claiming was a ‘pull’ was unchanged for those two years. Fact.

Completely and hilariously wrong. It was Chen that was challenging the Home Secretary. The ECJ does not and cannot suspend member nations' rights to decide matters on which they are competent when a matter of controversy is being litigated.

In 2003-2004, non-EU parents could not rely on treaty rights to settle in a third EU country. This is the fact of the matter, you cannot make up the law because you have an ideological ferret clawing away at the back of your brain.

And once again, the 2003 judgement was not about treaty rights, it was about a discreet matter in the Irish statute book.