Evidence Vindicating Citizenship referendum

supersheep

President4Life wrote:

I wouldn't agree that the 30% said it was "racist reasons". Nor would I accept that the 27% who cited "Too many immigrants coming into the country" or the 36% who said "The country is being exploited by immigrants" are racist individuals. If the assertions are factually correct, then they are not racist.

I can't remember the survey too well - not as well as you do it seems, unless we're talking about different surveys - but I do remember seeing the survey and working out that a minimum of 10% of people were willing to classify themselves as racist, at least in my mind.
As for saying those statements are factually correct, that is not true. Yes, some immigrants exploit this country. However, saying "the country is being exploited by immigrants" IS racist, because it implies that ALL immigrants exploit the country, and ignores the fact that Irish people exploit it too. As for saying "too many immigrants coming into the country", how do you define too many?

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

Yes lets get real. Post the figures for 2003,2004,2005 (to date). You will find they are going down.

The year before the referendum, the year of the referendum and the year after the referendum. And you were trying to show that the fall in the numbers had nothing to do with the referendum?

That the numbers are dropping because of the referendum? The numbers don't corrolate.

According to the article from the Independent, there was a drop in overall births of about 3% and there was a 'dramatic' drop in the number of immigrants turning up for late deliveries. Until you can give a more plausible explanation for why there were so many immigrants turning up late to give birth prior to the referendum and why the fall-off in numbers coincided with the change in the constitution, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it had something to do with the referendum. The master of the Rotunda hospital himself said in the article that immigrants were coming to Ireland when they were in the late stages of pregnancy and that this has now 'discontinued'.

supersheep wrote:

As for saying "too many immigrants coming into the country", how do you define too many?

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, we'll never know for sure if we have too many. I'm fairly sure though that if we had the chance to vote on it, most Irish people would consider the current number to be too many.

ArthurDent

Macmorris wrote:

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, we'll never know for sure if we have too many. I'm fairly sure though that if we had the chance to vote on it, most Irish people would consider the current number to be too many.

So when we ask people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, are you talking about a) immigrants from other EU states entitled to live and work here, b) immigrants from non-EU states that have been given visa's because the work in an industry experiencing shortages of workers, c)asylum seekers or d)refugees?
Cos if that's the question my answer would be

a) we don't have any choice all are entitled to enter
b) we need a huge number particularly in nursing/IT sector
c) and d) I think we have a moral obligation to take those we can afford to help (I personally would like the total number accepted by the EU to be divided up on the basis of GDP, but can't see it happening)

Macmorris

ArthurDent wrote:

a) we don't have any choice all are entitled to enter

Since when did we stop living in a democracy? Of course we have a choice.

b) we need a huge number particularly in nursing/IT sector

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

c) and d) I think we have a moral obligation to take those we can afford to help

The moral obligation to our own people is much greater, especially when you consider that we have plenty of people in this country who are far more deserving of help than bogus asylum-seekers.

ArthurDent

Macmorris wrote:

Since when did we stop living in a democracy? Of course we have a choice. .

Sorry to burst your bubble - if they are EU citizens they have every right to live and work here - same as we have in the other 24 states

Macmorris wrote:

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

We've currently 4.7% unemployment (slightly over 1% long term unemployed) you think this 4% is going to meet employment needs of Ireland? The Government doesn't think so
http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050413.htm

Macmorris wrote:

The moral obligation to our own people is much greater, especially when you consider that we have plenty of people in this country who are far more deserving of help than bogus asylum-seekers.

Agre with you on bogus asylum seekers, but what about genuine refugees and asylum seekers- don't we have a moral obligation to help them?

President4Life

ArthurDent wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble - if they are EU citizens they have every right to live and work here - same as we have in the other 24 states

No. Most of the original EU states imposed controls on immigration from the new EU states, and are allowed to retain them until 2009 after which they can apply to the EU Commission to extend them until 2011. There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states.

ArthurDent wrote:

you think this 4% is going to meet employment needs of Ireland? The Government doesn't think so
http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050413.htm

The Government and all the political Establishment just say things like that in my opinion because their patrons in industry are looking for cheap labour instead of Irish people who are not prepared to work for 8 euro an hour, and who - largely due to language difficulties - are less aware of their rights under employment legislation in this country. I find it terribly suspicious that, as Seamus Brennan pointed out recently, 120,000 new EU citizens were able to find work so quickly in this country when a similar number are still unemployed. It's because of what I say at the start of this paragraph. We are only sustaining the unemployment of our native people by letting so many in. If the Government removed this stupid cap on medical college places for Irish students then maybe we wouldn't be as hard-pressed to find more health-service workers too.

In this respect see http://www.unison.ie/features/worldcup2002/stories.php?ca=237&si=1091567

u on bogus asylum seekers, but what about genuine refugees and asylum seekers- don't we have a moral obligation to help them?

They should stay in the first EU state they enter.

ArthurDent

President4Life wrote:

No. Most of the original EU states imposed controls on immigration from the new EU states, and are allowed to retain them until 2009 after which they can apply to the EU Commission to extend them until 2011. There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states..

But here, currently we have no restrictions on immigration or employment from the 10 EU states - so my points stands - ANY EU citizen is fully entitled to be here.

President4Life wrote:

They should stay in the first EU state they enter.

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter - we have no moral obligations to them - nice!

President4Life

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter - we have no moral obligations to them - nice!

Correct.

ArthurDent

President4Life wrote:

Correct.

Great, at least we know where you stand now - everyone for themselves eh?
Don't hold with the Geneva Convention?http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/protect?id=3c0762ea4

President4Life

President4Life wrote:

There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states.

What a load of poop.
Practically every large country in the E.U has static or low growth rates compared to Ireland and relatively high unemployment.
We on the other hand need the labour, have low unemployment and money coming out our ears to such an extent that we dont even complain about the price of things much any more.
In other words a completely different circumstance.

You'll have to come up with something more plausable than you have thus far to convince any of us towards your agenda whatever that is...

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

More codswollop,I work with an employment agency that had to go to the Ukraine and Bulgaria pre enlargement to source workers having exhausted all possible avenues here including Fás.
They werent minimum wage jobs either.

the_syco

Macmorris wrote:

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

Actually, no. The lazy fúcks on the dole are still on the dole. You can walk into a pub, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, and apply for a job, and get one, if you have a work permit. The scum on the dole never bothered applying. I say scum, as there's alot of people who are on the dole as they physically can't work, due to injury, or mental incapacity, but the lazy fúcks who can, and don't are the scum.

In every low paid job I've been in, I've worked side by side with Pakistaini's, Indian's, Czec's, Polish, and Chinese, and they can work hard. Unemployed Irish? That 1% long term unemployed they speak of: 1% is quite a large number. The other 3% are proberly people on leave, looking for jobs, or in college.

ArthurDent wrote:

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter

Correct. You think that people get a direct flight from Africa?

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

The year before the referendum, the year of the referendum and the year after the referendum. And you were trying to show that the fall in the numbers had nothing to do with the referendum?

Yes because the drop had already started before the Referendum. The drop started over a court case which basically set a presedent to stop other people abusing the system.

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants

We are talking about Asylum seekers. Not immigrants. They are totally different things and the referendum had no effect on immigration.

Wheely

In any case, the refeerendum was a waste of our time and money. It was unnecessary and this shuold have been spotted by the Government and their advisors sas it was by so many other experts. Onreading the Article of the Constitution from which citizenship was derived its perfectly plausible to argue that citizenship rights were never constittuional in nature stemming instead from legislation. All the government had to do if they wanted to tighten out borders or limit asylum seekers was draft a piece of legislation governing it. But instead, as is the Irish way, they caused a big hulabuloo. stirred up these emotions throughout the country and had a referendum! Will they ever learn? Why not go for a fourth referendum on abortion next? The govt, like it or not, did misrepresent figures in their case for the referendum and constantly changed the point and supposede effects of the referendum outcome in orer to confuse the public. It was a sham all round really.

Boston

And there would have been hell to pay for FF if they hadn't asked the people.

supersheep

President4Life wrote:

Correct.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were a refugee... Still every man for himself?

bonkey

Well, as I guessed would happen, the insistence on referring to asylum seekers as immigrants has given some an excuse to discuss actual immigrants as though they are part of the same issue(s).

Clearly, neither the thread-starter nor any other I-can't-or-won't-dsitinguish-immigrants-from-asylum-seekers poster are interested in discussing the supposed topic, and are instead apparently using it (as we've seen all too often before) as nothing more than a platform to launch yet another tired broadside against all those foreigners they don't want in their country.

For me, at least, thats the time to walk away - I've better things to waste my time on.

jc