"We Cannot Let this Government Destroy our Reputation for Humanity"

by Mickey Mon Jan 23, 2006 23:21

Their entitled to say what they wan't to, tis a free country u know

by no voter Tue Jun 15, 2004 19:06

I couldnt agree more with mark,people get up off your asses and become active.
The word racist isnt used often enough look at Ivana Bacik or Mary lou Mcdonald they will come out and support the no vote but are too afraid to lose votes by calling the referendum racist its disgusting.

by PCer Tue Jun 15, 2004 13:08

"You must call a spade a spade. "

Bad choice of words.

by Mark Grehan Tue Jun 15, 2004 13:05

Why doesn't the ill informed clown get off his/her ass and do some work on the subject. We will call a racist a racist and be unrepentant about it. The problem over the last fEw years has been that people have been too afraid to use the word racist. You must call a spade a spade. If you don't agree go and do something about it instead of hoding behind your computer screen

by some ill-informed clown Tue Jun 15, 2004 04:45

I was wrong about the setting up of CARR, but if Mark Grehan wants to exhonerate the SWP from the responsibility for the racist political discourse in Ireland, he is denying its roots.

Shouting 'racist' everywhere has caused fear in the migrant community, and deeper divisions, and even hatred, in Ireland.

With naturalisation and Leave to Remain (Refugee Act, 1996), citizenship will only affect those who would like to vote in referenda etc.; so it won't effect you if you're under 5.

The public are far more sophisticated than your condescention and your telling vitriolic abuse would allow them. They rejected the government and voted for 'NO' parties, but a majority of left-voters in Dublin (at least), voted yes to the amendment.

I, the ill-informed clown, voted no. At least, i know i'm not alone Mark.

by until it sleeps Tue Jun 15, 2004 03:25

The nazis, even at their height, were voted it by a minority, not 80%. Just accept the referendum and dont try to change the unchangable. It just makes the leftist "movement" look even more ludicrous than it already is.

by Mark Grehan Mon Jun 14, 2004 13:11

There will be a meeting on saturday the 3 rd of July in the Teachers club in Dublin to analyse the referendum result and to see where we can go from here. The one thing that was always clear throughout the referendum was that there was plenty of work to be done to counter the misconceptions that people have about immigration. People should make a big effort to come. Well done to all who campigned against the referendum and ignore the begrudgers. Just because something gets voted in does not make it right. Just take a look at Nazi Germany

by Dee Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:42

where the sense is in this kind of thing that I've been hearing all morning

**Is there no chance that the vast conspiracy of media, bosses, union bureaucrats, social workers, church, university professors etcetc--i.ie the ruling class ideologically--will have the good manners to stop throwing inane slurs like "racist" at 80% of the people ?**

Just because 80% of people think something doesn't stop it from being racist, and doesn't make it right.

Also, you don't have to think that everybody who voted Yes was racist to believe that the idea of making citizenship more about bloodline is a racist one.

by AngryLiberal - iccl,labour etc. Sun Jun 13, 2004 20:11

Well we lost anyway but while i agree with mark and others from the no side on the referendum i disagree with calling it racist.Mark wrote that it was based on the racial background of the parents.Howso?Surely mark as a member of sinn fein knows the difference between nationality and racial or cultural background.A person whose long deceased ancestors were irish who has married other irish emigrants and who on taking a DNA test would be just as "irish"as the rest of us would still be denied citizenship.The referendum was not racist it was at worst xenophobic and i think using words like racist without basis both undermines the value of the word by crying wolf and turns people off what must be seen as lefty boogeyman hunting.

by dog_fan Sun Jun 13, 2004 00:13

No Irish, No blacks, NO DOGS!!!!!!!!! Say no to this anti-dog referendum!!!!!!!!!

by nordie Sat Jun 12, 2004 19:42

You're doomed to be served up on a plate sometime. Those whose minds take the form of pigs or guard dogs shall become pigs or guard dogs when their present vessel dies. Then we'll eat ye or pet ya.

by pig-person Sat Jun 12, 2004 19:30

C'mon and join us why don'tcha .....
Go with the floooooooow ......

oink oink ....

by Nordie Sat Jun 12, 2004 19:24

hoggish one, I don't think all the people who voted with you would agree with your original statement which talked about 'dirty niggers' and 'gypo Romanian granny bashers'.

Not all but enough I fear. The hoggish grunts of the pig-poeple are starting to drown out the sound of any intelligence in the world.

by Sean Dowling Sat Jun 12, 2004 19:03

Mark Grehan wrote:

Sean Dowling is an idiot of the highest order

Mark, I take that as a compliment. But obviously I am good for something, since a week ago I was predicting on this web site a No majority of from 3 to 4 to One. A couple of the posters who live in a fantasy world told me I was dead wrong !

On a serious note, it seems clear that a majority, probably a big majority, of those who voted Labour, Green, SF also voted Yes in the referendum. In fact I know several people who voted Number One for Joe Higgins and Yes in the referendum (I am one of those myself!!).
Is there no chance that the vast conspiracy of media, bosses, union bureaucrats, social workers, church, university professors etcetc--i.ie the ruling class ideologically--will have the good manners to stop throwing inane slurs like "racist" at 80% of the people ?

by Anonymous Sat Jun 12, 2004 17:51

The people have spoken indeed. I think a 66% yes vote was given on pre-election polls. Final result looks even higher. Individualism vs. humanity - There was always gonna be only one clear winner.

I wonder could we have another bit of "democracy" now and re-run the referendum as with the Nice referendum. Ah no, the government got its way this time so there will be no re run. Great democracy and consistency. But I certainly stand by the people's decision, albeit I disagree with it.

by the hoggish one Sat Jun 12, 2004 17:34

And if ye had won, no doubt we'd be hearing about the "triumph of democracy" and the defeat of the racist neanderthals .....

No use whining because ye lost ... the plain people of Ireland are not as stupid as ye think ......

by pc Sat Jun 12, 2004 16:38

no i don't

by the hoggish one Sat Jun 12, 2004 16:22

You see my friends, we - the hoggish ones - are in the majority here ...... !!!

You do believe in democracy, now don't you ?

by pc Sat Jun 12, 2004 15:17

say 74% yes :(.................

by Mark Grehan Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:59

some ill informed clown said that the SWP set up CARR. That is a complete lie CARR was set up by Residents Against Racism as was clearly stated in previous postings on this website the SWP never controled CARR nor would they have been able to

by Mark Grehan Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:55

Sean Dowling is an idiot of the highest order, again this will discriminate children on the basis of their parents racial background. How is that not racist? And again also look at the statement from the NCCRI that since the announcement of the referendum racist incidents have increased especially against non-national pregnant women. This referendum will only lead to increased racism of which i have scores of letters and phone calls to prove it. Sean also says '"I am guessing Grehan only shouts "racism" when black people may be affected" well Sean idiots like yourself shouldn't guess you don't have the intelligence for it.

by ach Sat Jun 12, 2004 03:22

It's happened to me too Nordie, but no bad thing. For those who missed the immediate context, it was RACIST beyond belief.

by diabhal Sat Jun 12, 2004 03:19

it's probably the alcohol and shit-stir nature that has hoggish one the way he is, unless he's agent provocitaire.

vignetettes such as that above, abound on the right - mobile phones, houses in Dalkey etc., but why do people hasten to hammer the inarticulate ramblings of someone on the 78 or 123, rather than dialogue and engage with the discourse of the disenfranchised. NO camp, i hope, but don't think you'll learn your lessons from this campaign.

by nordie Sat Jun 12, 2004 02:47

As I read his comments with scornful regard,
I contemplate the pig brained cretin,
Hell sprung campion of eternal idiocy,
And I marvel at the corruption of stupidity.
The bog-trotter, snorting loudly, sneering,
Squirts his diseased seed over the maiden white page,
As a million red-neck wet dreams fill his stunted mind.
This grunting abomination, this victim of infinite ignorance
Must surely have some awful, hoofed hoggish ancestry,
A horrible distortion of evolution.
I shudder as I ask myself the horrible question:
Was this botherer of barnyard animals, this deranged sister desirer,
Was this brute excreted alive, flung into the toilet from a monstrous behind?

by diabhal Sat Jun 12, 2004 02:06

Cite judges why don't you? Sure, and by its nature, all law is discriminatory, since it favours the rich, The job-shring law was poorist, but the judges would never have ruled that. Exorting people to engage in selling their labour and time at the expense of nurturing a family, the cost of child-care and the non-provision of creches, could be considered as babyist, but no - rather, it is capitalism that denegrates the position of those who would raise children to the best of their ability.

Other laws are disablist (what does thte secret ballot mean to a blind person?)...but that's not a sexy issue, and only egets like Blunkett get elected after having capital on their side.

To take an 'indirect descrimination' and turn it into a pure one is redolent of the Absolutist theology of the Middle Ages, or worse still, of the black-and-whites of fascism.

You suggest that it is the state of origin, or worse still, the phenotype of the would-be citizen that is driving this referendum. 99% or more of the world's 6 billion inhabitants are of non-Irish background, and since white people only make up 12% or so of this, you would be right in saying that most of those potentially affected would look a little different (same race though).

To impute this as the reason for the referendum, is an example of having one's mind closed (a preori), regardless.

Some misguided people think that citizenship of a relatively small island is finite, and so, if every white person in the world decided to move here, similar moves might be made. It's not the numbers that count here, so much as the potential, if a 'loop-hole' seems to exist.

Others might think that commodification of a child should be discouraged, and that those who seek birth-citizenship for their children don't exactly hold the bright shining state of Ireland as their model of Nirvana. If you say that most are coming from sub-Saharan Africa, you must know something that everyone on the NO side knows too, but won't admit, but it is YOU who are bringing up the race issue.

There are 500 million people in Africa. The answer to the dire problems of that continent, largely caused by Western imperialism and MNCs, is not mass-migration (which would denude the countries of population and clear the way for mineral exploitation), and also lead to a larger industrial reserve army here - hence, more exploitation.

by ec Fri Jun 11, 2004 22:33

Was getting off the bus on thomas st today and saw three ed irish citizens racially abuse a nigerian woman with two kids saying ' this election will sort yiz out - back to africa with your babies - we know what yiz are up to.'

Hope mcDowell reaps what he's sown.

by Ois - WSM Fri Jun 11, 2004 21:20

Sean Dowling writes...
The fact is that McDowell turns out to be a big teddy bear on this question. Not ONE parent of an Irish-born child has been expelled from the country by McDowell, even when they have no right whatsoever to stay in the country.


Sean you are wrong. Below is an article I wrote for 'Workers Solidarity' a few months back. If you're too lazy to read the entirety of it, just read the first three paragraphs.

Josif Fagoras' child is an Irish Citizen (see below). His is merely one example of the many families that have been broken up by McDowell and this bigoted scumbag government of ours.

Could it be Sean that you, the man that has just repetitively claimed that Mark Grehan and others are making stuff up, made stuff up? Oh my God, intolerance and racism is bred by bigotry, ignorance and misinformation. Christ who’d have guessed?


Deporting our neighbours - Government plays race card to divide and rule
By Ois.

On Wednesday the 11th of February, Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) officers began a covert operation, arresting 65 failed asylum-seekers.

The 53 Romanians and 12 Moldovans were arrested in their homes in Dublin, Meath, Westmeath and Wicklow, before being brought to Mountjoy and Cloverhill prisons to await their deportations. At 7.30 the following morning they were flown on a chartered flight, which went first to Romania and then on to Moldova. 12 of the deportees were children; some of whom may have been Irish citizens, the GNIB refuses to release that information. We do know however that 34 of the Romanian deportees were men, 12 women and 7 children.

One of the Romanian deportees, Mr. Josif Fagoras (27), left behind his wife and three young children, all under seven. One of Mr. Fagoras' children is an Irish citizen whose family is supposed to be protected under article 41 of the Irish Constitution. It seems that the Irish State is under no compulsion to obey its own laws. Instead the State has decided that 'Irish Born Citizens' are a different kind of citizen, these young Irish Citizens, who can't stand up for themselves, are having their constitutional rights trampled on by the State, and by the Minister for Justice, Michael Mc-Dowell.

It is extremely difficult to understand why the State wants to deport so many immigrants. Even if we look at the immigrants as the State does, not as human beings but as economic units, the State's immigration policy doesn't make sense. Last year alone, Minister McDowell signed 2,428 deportation orders; for all of these deportation orders to be carried out it would have cost the Irish taxpayer in the region of 6.5 million euro. Clearly it is not the immigrants that are costing the economy but the State's racist immigration policy.

Considering that the ruling class is terrified of a shrinking work force, the State's immigration policy makes even less sense. The week after last month's operation, Blair, Schroder and Chirac (Germany and France's respective heads of State) called on Europeans to have more children. Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the UN, recently warned that 'Without immigration, the population of the soon-to-be 25 Member States of the EU - 452 million in 2000 - would drop to under 400 million people by 2050...Were this to happen, jobs would go unfilled and services undelivered. Your economies would shrink and your societies could stagnate.'

There's no reason for the State's current draconian immigration policy except the age-old tactic off 'Divide and Rule'. It suits the Irish elite to scapegoat refugees for all the problems that their mismanagement of society causes. The ruling class wants to set Irish workers against immigrant workers so as to prevent the workers from seeing that their interests are the same regardless of nationality. But libertarian socialists know; Immigrant and Irish workers: same bosses - same struggle.

For more on Anarchism and Racism see
http://struggle.ws/wsm/racism.html or
http://struggle.ws/wsm/refugee.html

by Dee Fri Jun 11, 2004 18:55

**Exactly. Three years residency before you become a citizen. three years Living on the island, three years living with the people of ireland. Thats your connection to ireland. Alternatively if one of your parents is already Irish, well theres your connection to Irishness, irish identity. Not necessarily 'bloodline' or genetics, but 'connection' to the land and peoples of ireland is what is being required as a prerequisite to citizenship, not a bloodtest, not about skin colour, just a requirement for residency. ie LIVE HERE.**

Just a few things

1. Why three years specifically? I'm not trying to make one of those "you can't draw a line" arguments because they do my nut, but you seem to be very keen on that as an amount of time. Is that just because it's what's on the table, or do you have some other reason for feeling it is reasonable?

2. What if your parents are Irish but you are not born here?

Because that, to me, a non-NO campaigner but someone very worried about this whole thing, is what brings the race issue into play here.

If Irish identity (and all talk of the difference between nationality and citizenship aside, this is what I believe we're really talking about here) is something that you can have by birth with ONLY a blood relationship to Ireland but isn't available equally to all people born here then I think you're skewing citizenship towards bloodline.

If you want to take away the citizenship entitlements of non-Irish-born children of Irish parents too, then although I don't agree with you, I can see some merit in your argument.

Personally I don't see a lot to be gained by restricting citizenship entitlements, but clearly you do and that would seem a way to do it.

3. Totally agree with your last point.

Although I didn't vote Yes I was interested several weeks back when this was announced to hear the argument in favour of giving the Dail full power to legislate on citizenship.

What most saddens me about this whole thing is that I think there has been an attempt by the government, and by that I mean the PDs because FF don't seem to give a toss either way, to slide this thing through with their "it's only common sense" bolloxology.

This is a bloody important decision, and it was an opportunity for us to discuss the "Irish identity" you referred to earlier in a way that recognises how much things have changed even since 1998 when the Constitution was changed by the GFA. And it's been pissed away. And that's a damn shame.

by j26 Fri Jun 11, 2004 09:13

The Gerster judgement a few years ago where the European Court held that certain conditions relating to worksharing (reduced pensions and seniority) were discriminatory in that they affected women more than men. Any analysis of worksharing patterns will show that it is taken up overwhalmingly by women to care for their children.
There was nothing in the legislation directly mentioning women, but it was held that since it primarily affected women then it was discriminatory even if is available to men to participate. It's called "indirect discrimination".

We have the same situation here - if the referendum is passed then the people most likely to be affected will be non-europeans. The majority of "white" non-nationals are already EU citizens and won't be affected in any significant way. The main group that WILL be affected will be African, South American and Asian "guest workers" and refugees - the "niggers", "spicks" and "chinks".

The proposed change to the referendum is racist pure and simple.

by diabhal Fri Jun 11, 2004 07:04

As things stand, the Constitution is ageist; since it purports to give to a new-born, what it would not give to a 5-hour old, 5-day old, 5-year old, or 50 year-old, i.e., automatic right to citizenship.

'Racism' was imported into Irish political discourse by the SWP in the late 90s. They set up CARR (even if they no longer control it). 'Race' has not only hijacked the discussion, from human rights etc, but has left a bitter taste of brow-beating prejudice, rather than contribute to any meaningful, didactic or engageing debate.

Also, since when were anarchists so worried about the minutii of 'citizenship' and Constituional Law. Most immigrants to Ireland (about 100 per week) expect 'Leave to Remain' at the end of the process. This entitles most applicants to the same rights as an Irish citizen (including travel abroad), apart from the right to vote in referendums and other stuff that wouldn't interest anarchists, or would it? I'm not slaggin' but just wondering about the inconsistency, for if the end justifies the means, then dismantling borders can wait till the advent of fair trade.

It's too late now, but apart from the government's grand-standing, the referendum will mean little or nothing, not worth all the hot air or tax-payer money, after all.

Like exploitation itslef, migration as an issue will be here long after this sharade.

by Gazprom Fri Jun 11, 2004 02:52

What sort of shite talk is that?

It's either racist or it's not, and if you're sayig it is then point out where in the Amendment it says that particular races are excluded.

by pc Thu Jun 10, 2004 20:47

i think mg although im sure he'll respond to it himself that the ref is racist in general....

you can pick at parts of the referendum for or against...

but if you take the ref as a whole it is racist....

by Sean Dowling Thu Jun 10, 2004 20:43

Mark Grehan wrote:

This referendum, if passed will discriminate children on the basis of their parents racial background

Mr Grehan is lying, there is no other word for it. Where is the racial element to this referendum ? Can Grehan cite one word or phrase in which the future citizenship arrangements (after we get a nice Big 70% YES on Friday) will discriminate against any race ? The fact is that a child born to French, Slovak, Australian, Peruvian Angolan etc etc. parents will be in exactly the same situation before the law. And a black child (I am guessing Grehan only shouts "racism" when black people may be affected) born to an Irish citizen will enjoy full citizenship, unlike the white child born here to Americans, Austrians Australians etc etc.
Unless Grehan can show evidence to the contrary then I conclude he is a liar.

by Human Rights for Change Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:32 info at humanrightsforchange dot org

On June 11th Irish voters will be asked to decide whether they think the
constitutional right to citizenship of children born in the country should
be removed. If this referendum is passed it will no longer be the
“entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland…to
be part of the Irish Nation”, unless one of the newborn child’s parents is
an Irish citizen. Human Rights for Change is extremely concerned with the
content and timing of this referendum.

The Government is appealing to people’s basest fears when it uses language
such as “citizen tourism”, “abuse of the Constitution” and the “closing of
loopholes”. It has failed to produce any convincing statistics to prove its
claim that a multitude of persons are coming here specifically to gain
citizenship in this manner. Even if it is conceded that a few hundred
children are born in the State each year to non-national parents, this
should still not merit the calling of a constitutional referendum to amend
this historical document. The proposed “solution” is entirely
disproportionate to what the Government sees as a problem. For generations,
Irish people have travelled overseas, particularly to the United States of
America, to escape famine, poverty and unemployment. It is shameful that a
country as prosperous as modern-day Ireland would now seek to exclude
persons who find themselves in similar circumstances.

The Government has called for this referendum at a time when it knows that
the public’s attention will be diverted elsewhere by the European and Local
Elections. It has also not allowed sufficient time for the issue to be
publicly debated, to allow concerned groups to have their opinions heard.
The Government’s attitude to this issue is unsurprising: it is fully in
character with the Department of Justice dragging its heels in reporting to
the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and
with its recent tampering with equality legislation. Owing to the
Government’s approach, a pregnant non-national woman will now be treated
with suspicion. If it is passed, children born here will fall into one of
two status categories. Being in one of those categories will entitle a
child to more rights than children in the other. This is unacceptable.
Human Rights for Change strongly urges the people to vote No in this
referendum.

by Mark Grehan - Campaign Against the Racist Referendum Thu Jun 10, 2004 15:24

Sean wrote "I don't understand why the No crowd are so prejudiced against Irish citizens who acquired their citizenship through parent or grandparent." this quote is ill informed and extremely ridiculous i haven't heard anyone on the No side say anything prejudiced towards the descendents of the diaspora.

Sean also wrote "rather than throw open the doors to all who have no link or interest in the country e.g. Chen." Chen doesn't live in Ireland nor is she legally entitled to live in Ireland. The Chen case (of which the judgement hasn't been given, only an opinion has) is a case about the free movement of people in the EU and not about citizenship. Also people should note the tone in the language Sean uses "throw open the doors" this language is akin to the language used by right wing groups and certain elements in the media, words such as flood, influx, invasion. All the words are used to attempt to stir up an irrational fear among people for the benefit of an elite, in this case the political class.

by Sean Dowling Thu Jun 10, 2004 13:56

chris bond wrote:

There are 60 million people in the world eligable for irish citizenship through irish ancestory....

That's a very interesting statistic. How did you come up with it ? How does it break down between countries--USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, UK etc. ? And what percentage of them have actually taken ouit Irish citizenship ?

And is the ancestry you're talking about having a parent who is an Irish citizen or a grandparent ? Doesn't make that much difference, I suppose, since if the grandparent was an Irish citizen then the parent was entitled to be an Irish citizen. That's why I don't understand why the No crowd are so prejudiced against Irish citizens who acquired their citizenship through parent or grandparent.

BTW, it used to go back another generation, to the great-grandparents, but that was changed in 1986. There are loads of countries, e.g Spain, Italy, Greece, where there is no limit on the number of generations. If you can show an unbroken link with an Italian ancestor then you can get Italian citizenship. A nation with an emigrant tradition such as Ireland's should nurture links with the descendants of our people abroad, rather than throw open the doors to all who have no link or interest in the country e.g. Chen.

by Mark Grehan - Campaign Against the Racist Referendum Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:55

This referendum, if passed will discriminate children on the basis of their parents racial background. The NCCRI has already stated that racist attacks have increased since the announcement of this referendum particularly against non national pregnant women. The referendum is a vindication of extreme right groups such as the neo nazi group the National Socialist R Us. I have received scores of letters and phone calls of the most vile racist abuse you could imagine. referendum for years, the referendum is a vindication for those out there who hold racist views as "i must be right as the government agrees with me". The first people to use the word racist in regards to the referendum were michael mcdowell and bertie ahern. The referendum is clearly racist, it will only lead to increased racism in our country. In future times, if this referendum is passed, people will look at this referendum as a watershed for increased and open racism in Ireland, and as a time when Ireland ignored her past and rejected her future.

by Yes Voter Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:01

>>"Surely connection to an island is something you learn by living on it, and a connection to its people is something you learn by living with them? No baby can really be said to be born with those links unless you believe that Irishness is about bloodline."

Exactly. Three years residency before you become a citizen. three years Living on the island, three years living with the people of ireland. Thats your connection to ireland. Alternatively if one of your parents is already Irish, well theres your connection to Irishness, irish identity. Not necessarily 'bloodline' or genetics, but 'connection' to the land and peoples of ireland is what is being required as a prerequisite to citizenship, not a bloodtest, not about skin colour, just a requirement for residency. ie LIVE HERE.

My major problem with this referendum is
with how the NO opposition have turned it into a Race issue just to further their own ends, ie stir up the shit to throw at the Government. Accusing the government of showing the race card is laughable, It was the NO camp who branded this the racism referendum.
(god help me -im defending FF, i think i need to go and have a shower-ugh)

In summary I think a YES vote is totally reasonable, BUT if i vote NO it will be because I think we need at least a full year of discussion before we make any changes to the constitution that will give more power to the legislature.

by Gaelle Bertrand Thu Jun 10, 2004 03:29

They are forcing all of their puppet states to crack down on control of movement of people. The Irish govt has no choice but to push this through - the decision however was made at CIA HQ Langley.

by chris bond Thu Jun 10, 2004 00:06

There are 60 million people in the world eligable for irish citizenship through irish ancestory. The reason why mcdowell isnt closing down that "loophole" is because the majority of these people are white and can speak english.

The citizenship referendrum is flawed and racist as it targets coloured and ethnic people for confiscation of citizenship rights.

by slow Wed Jun 09, 2004 22:37

when you say "we can't let this government Destroy our Reputation for Humanity"

Which government are you referring to?

Dail Eirinn?
Brussels?
Hollywood?
Washington?
Rome?
Geneva?
Belfast?
London?
or Lagos / Dakar / "UN"?

by pc Wed Jun 09, 2004 20:17

i see harney says she's not chaning the permit system so immigrant workers can have control over where they lives, only read the headline interesting though,
shows the govs attitude to immigrants

by j26 Wed Jun 09, 2004 19:52

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's unlikely that anyone in the "No" camp is going to support forced ejection of anyone.

Yet again the argument is weak. If one appreciates one aspect of something, this is not a wholehearted endorsement of everything.
"Because I support the separation of state and religion in the US, I must support US foreign policy." The reasoning does not hold up.


P.S. I suppose you could see McDowell as a teddy bear - he probably does have tonnes of cotton wool stuffed up his arse.

by Sean Dowling Wed Jun 09, 2004 19:35

Will someone on the No side please tell me if they would support the state forcing people not entitled to residence in Ireland to leave the country even if they have an Irish-born child ? That's what the Americans do. If a Mexican woman crosses the Rio Grande to have a baby she is given the choice. Abandon your baby in Texas, or else take it back with you to Mexico.
Do the No people really want us to enforce that kind of inhumane system ? The fact is that McDowell turns out to be a big teddy bear on this question. Not ONE parent of an Irish-born child has been expelled from the country by McDowell, even when they have no right whatsoever to stay in the country.

by j26 Wed Jun 09, 2004 19:20

Sean Dowling writes:
"....And by the way, by giving the power to the Dail, McDowell is giving a future FG/Labour coalition government the right to reinstate the current situation, and go back to citizenship by birth. Anyone like to put money on a future non-Fianna Fail coalition bringing back the current status ? ....."


So one right wing party is likely to change the legislation over another right wing party in any way other than to make it more restrictive? Get real. That's as ridiculous as suggesting that there is an ideological divide between the two main protagonists in our sorry excuse for an electoral system. It's either vote for the party that supports the referendum or the party that supports the referendum (great choice there). That's not a real argument for changing the constitution. Worldwide there are 43 states that still have birthright (shocked to find myself agreeing with American policy) including the USA and Canada.

We are alone in the EU in having this policy. Being in a minority does not make us wrong. Maybe Ireland could be seen as the shining beacon for the rest of Europe to follow (Nah, we'd probably vote to expel all "niggers" if we could!)

by Sean Dowling Wed Jun 09, 2004 18:55

Dee wrote:
Clearly people who would currently entitled to Irish citizenship will no longer be entitled to that citizenship if the referendum is passed, and the government passes their intended legislation.

That's ridiculous. There is not a baby alive today who will be denied anything because we vote Yes on Friday. There is no chance whatsoever of the thing being retrospective, indeed knowing the Dail as I do I would go further, and say that there is not an embryo in existence anywhere in the world who will be denired anything, since it'll be many months before the legislation is passed and even then it will probably have a long lead-in time.
So really Dee (and all the No crowd) is obsessed by the "rights" of people who don't even exist !

And by the way, by giving the power to the Dail, McDowell is giving a future FG/Labour coalition government the right to reinstate the current situation, and go back to citizenship by birth. Anyone like to put money on a future non-Fianna Fail coalition bringing back the current status ? That in itself is proof that the current situation is a laughing stock and must be changed.

by student Wed Jun 09, 2004 18:27

Students’ Unions in Trinity College Dublin (TCD), University College Dublin (UCD), Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT), the National College of Art and Design (NCAD) and Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology (DLIADT) have all passed motions calling for a “No” vote in Friday’s poll. They have now joined forces with the Union of Students in Ireland (USI), the representative body of over 250,000 students in Ireland

Joined forces???, are they not already linked ... we are members i presume??????

by Dee Wed Jun 09, 2004 18:11

**And thats just my point, you dont become a citizen of any other EU country just by being accidently born there, but you do in Ireland, which effectively strips Irish citizenship of any real value, anyone can have an irish passport, regardless of the lack of any connection to the island or peoples of ireland.**

By this.

Why is Irish citizenship stripped of any value just because we don't use the same criteria as other EU countries to grant it?

Ireland follows the tradition of common-law countries (of which we are one) by granting citizenship by geography rather than by bloodline. Other countries do it too (e.g. USA), why is the Europe necessarily right on this?

You keep talking about people being "accidentally" born places as though that happens all the time and we really need to make sure that people can't take advantage of it.

But it seems to me that if all you're worried about is accidental citizenship, then you should hope that anyone who is born here of resident parents should be a citizen, because if you live here and not anywhere else at the time of your birth then you have as much reason to call Ireland your home as I do or you do.

Surely connection to an island is something you learn by living on it, and a connection to its people is something you learn by living with them? No baby can really be said to be born with those links unless you believe that Irishness is about bloodline.

Also, is something really meaningless because anybody can have it? Why is inclusiveness such a threat?

Are things only good if you can take them away from other people because you have a more authentic claim?

by Dee Wed Jun 09, 2004 17:57

So do you think that citizenship should be denied to the children of Irish parents who have left the country?

That would be at the very least a consistent argument.

However a child most certainly shouldn't have to go through the same naturalisation process as the parents. If you are born and brought up somewhere you are of that place far more than you are of some country that your parents left and that you may have never even visited.

Even if you take away the automatic right to citizenship of children born here, making them naturalise as though they were from elsewhere and had to learn about Irish culture is quite petty.

by Yes voter Wed Jun 09, 2004 16:18

"How is it any more ridiculous for someone who is only somewhere on holidays to be entitled to citizenship than it is for someone who has never been to a country, and never plans to go there to be entitled?"

Its not 'more' ridiculous,... its just 'as' ridiculous.
And thats just my point, you dont become a citizen of any other EU country just by being accidently born there, but you do in Ireland, which effectively strips Irish citizenship of any real value, anyone can have an irish passport, regardless of the lack of any connection to the island or peoples of ireland.
The proposed legislation, to my understanding, sets out to correct that anomalous situation by ensuring that a child born, by accident or intent, on the island of ireland WILL have full access to citizenship just as their parents do, that is their parents have to be resident etc... the child does not have immediate and automatic right to citizenship, just like their parents. Whats so terrible about that? The child will have to go through the same naturalisation procedures as the parents.

by King Amdo Wed Jun 09, 2004 15:55

...was in fact because of the occupapation (of Northern Ireland by the British)...Thus anyone born in Ireland proper has citizenship (of the republic). Now british right wing forces have pushed immigration to a guilt avoidance scapegoiat high (oh yeah white skin...wank cum wank)...that in a follow my leader sort of way, Ireland has decided that it must clamp down on immigrants families, communities and descendents in this sad way.

All this really shows is that the 'world leadership' in general and Ireland specifically are weak willed and useless cheeky bunch of conts. I'd recommend, thus reject the proposed change. (Watch the voting paper wording, they might try it and catch people somehow). They're a dodgy bunch, and that's for sure.

Blessed be, the great Mother Witch, Danna!

King Amdo

by pc Wed Jun 09, 2004 15:38

atleast higgins took back his mistakes
admitted he wa incorrect havn't see mcdoweell do that

by Dee Wed Jun 09, 2004 14:30

**No One is being 'denied' citizenship, it just means you have to be resident three years before you and any children you may have are eligible to be irish.**

Eh?

Clearly people who would currently entitled to Irish citizenship will no longer be entitled to that citizenship if the referendum is passed, and the government passes their intended legislation.

i.e. they will be denied something they would previously have been granted

Just because you don't think they *should* be granted it doesn't mean that taking it away isn't taking it away.

As for being a citizen of Austria if you are born there just because your parents were on holidays when you were born, what harm?

If they're only on holidays and then you all leave and you never take up the citizenship you are entitled to, so what?

How is it any more ridiculous for someone who is only somewhere on holidays to be entitled to citizenship than it is for someone who has never been to a country, and never plans to go there to be entitled?

by Yes Voter Wed Jun 09, 2004 13:54

No One is being 'denied' citizenship, it just means you have to be resident three years before you and any children you may have are eligible to be irish.
Now if your Mum happened to be on holiday in say Austria, when she gave birth to you, should that automatically make you an austrian citizen, if your parents are Irish, live in ireland, and leave austria after your birth to live in ireland.
if you were born in a stable would that make you a horse.
No, but if you could demonstrate that you were a horse, and had been a horse for three years, paying your horse taxes and contributing to horse society, then you would get citizenship of the stable, and so would your kids, officially recognised as foals of course.

by finbar Wed Jun 09, 2004 13:03

You shouldn't vote Yes because Michael D higgins personally dissappointed you. It was bound to happen sometime.

If your concerned about figures the government still have none. Mary Hanafin couldn't answer the figures questions last night.

Don't forget the principal remains the same that the referendum will make citizenship hereditary and not a birth right

by Man In The Middle Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:12

I was floating between Yes and No till I heard Michael D Higgins on radio last week. Everything he said was wrong. Was he lying, or just didn't have his facts ? I was really disappointed with him, as I had hoped he would run for president against McAleese. Now if he does I just won't vote.

Several people I know turned against No because of Higgins performance.

by Garman Lach Wed Jun 09, 2004 03:57

What has asylum-seekers got to do with the referendum. If someone is seeking asylum, the Sate is comparitively sympathetic re judging the case.

by Mark Grehan Tue Jun 08, 2004 18:39

Asylum seekers are not work shy. They are not allowed to work at all. If you think that they are here to "sponge" why not campaign for their right to work.

by pc Tue Jun 08, 2004 18:39

but be nice, ive had to hold my tongue plenty of times when people talk about scroungers

by Not Confused Tue Jun 08, 2004 17:53

Confused, you state that there are non Irish nationals that are scammers and wasters. There are scammers and wasters in every ethnic group! Are there not plenty of Irish wasters that are 'milking the system'. For example Tony O'Reilly, Denis O'Brien, Haughey, etc.

The fact is that if you oppose the Government attempting to scapegoat a group in society you should oppose it. Why support this government efforts to deflect attentions and blame away from cuts in public services? What have you got to gain from voting Yes? Absolutely nothing! You have a lot to loose by voting Yes, an arrogant government making up more laws to restrict the rights anf freedoms of minority groups. A Yes vote will give the green light to the government to further cuts and blame immigrants.

VOTE NO on Friday.

by Confused Tue Jun 08, 2004 17:26

I'm one of the 17% unsure about how to vote. I dont see a great need for the vote in the first place but that is not a good enough reason to vote no.

Being honest I feel that certain non nationals make it easy to be racist. For instance I have the height of regard for the Chinese and Vietnamese community, hard working and in the main honest. I would hate to see those people being denied Irish citizenship as they are "an asset to the collective" as someone said. They came here with nothing and got on with things as the Irish have done in America. Similarily the Latvians and Lithuanians whose work ethic puts the Irish to shame

On the other hand other asylum seekers seem to be work shy and more interested in begging and scams. It is these people who have me wondering which way to vote. Should we accord citizenship just because you happened to be born in a country?

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Jun 08, 2004 16:27

Asylum seekers and undocumented workers (as we call friends and relatives living illegally in the U.S.) are not to blame for the downgrading and under-resourcing of Irish hospitals. And yet the FF-PD coalition are hoping voters will divert their anger over government health policy to the referendum on citizenship, scapegoating immigrants instead of blaming the policymakers. It's a ploy, that's common sense.
Authorities have always blamed others for the harm that their policies cause: Immigrants, women and poor people generally are the usual suspects. The Citizenship Scapegoat Referendum is just a ploy to lay blame for government failures and deliberate policies (should we call them successes?) at the feet of poor, immigrant women.
At Temple Bar Square speaker's corner the other day I heard this troll constantly interrupting speakers with heckles about "citizenship tourists", "illegals" and "loopholes". His behavior reminded me of a letter I read in a paper a few days ago about all this: Some of these "Yes" campaigners are evidence enough in themselves that Ireland's gene pool shouldn't be restricted by the proposed ethnic citizenship regime!