Identity is a sense of place not birthplace

[lopez]

Actually most people in England do not live with other races. They tend to stick to their own ethnic/racial group as detailed in the census report. The Economist posted an interesting article about how Indian immigrants to England do not mix with African/Carribean immigrants.I didn't say that most people live with each other. Just that most people don't find the need to live in ghettos. Most of my aquaintances are Irish (1 & 2G). I married someone who was Irish. But I don't have an aversion to mixing and socialising with other people. And the figures also suggest that mixed race marriages are higher in Britain than the US. The figures about Asians are also misleading. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis tend to be more insular. Other non-Muslim Asians would socialise more because they can go drinking in pubs and meet others.

Again, there is a legitimate question of how many are too many. If 5 million Americans moved to Ireland would the country still be Ireland? It's legitimate to limit the numbers of people who wish to emmigrate anywhere and parroting catch-phrases of how we can all get along in a mosaic of racial harmony is intellectuall and morally untenable.I'm not supporting free-for-all migration - although that was never discussed when Europeans moved to other continents. Just about multi-culturalism, especially in the so-called melting pot of the US where mixed marriage was illegal in many US states fifty years ago.

[Fergie's Son]

Although I agreed with Cowboy that this was a football thread, I just can't stand your second quote and have to write something.

Did you stop to think for even one second why the referendum took place on the same day as local elections and European elections? For one second, even?

Did you consider for another second why Michael McDowell barely debated the referendum beforehand and used anecdotal evidence to support it?

Did you consider or even search out figures of how many babies were born in Ireland last year? If the issues was "about numbers," what were those numbers? What was the extent of 'citizenship tourism'? Do you know?

Actually I am well aware of the numbers and I participated as much as I could in the referendum. I wish this subject had been debated further and in greater detail. This is the most important issue facing Ireland and it should be discussed openly and freely. The facts are, however, that a significant number (in excess of 10,000 per year (from the Economist) of immigrants were seeking "asylum" in Ireland due to fact that Ireland was considered a "soft touch", that is Ireland provided benefits and access to citizenship. To seek asylum someone needs to be in imminent fear for their lives. For example, for a Nigerian to claim asylum in Ireland they have to by-pass 17 countries to get here. Imminent? I don't think so. It was forum shopping at its most rank and obvious.

[Donal81]

Actually I am well aware of the numbers and I participated as much as I could in the referendum. I wish this subject had been debated further and in greater detail. This is the most important issue facing Ireland and it should be discussed openly and freely. The facts are, however, that a significant number (in excess of 10,000 per year (from the Economist) of immigrants were seeking "asylum" in Ireland due to fact that Ireland was considered a "soft touch", that is Ireland provided benefits and access to citizenship. To seek asylum someone needs to be in imminent fear for their lives. For example, for a Nigerian to claim asylum in Ireland they have to by-pass 17 countries to get here. Imminent? I don't think so. It was forum shopping at its most rank and obvious.

People claiming asylum and women giving birth to children to claim citizenship are different matters. McDowell and co. used phrases such as "births to immigrants" and so on. Figures of non-national births were knocked around the place. Not once was it broken down for the public how much of these non-nationals weren't here legally, which was the point of the entire referendum.

Not only that but the masters of Dublin hospitals were used as authority on immigration, which they most certainly were not (they run hospitals, not customs). They later came out and said that they were unhappy and being used and they had be quoted out of context. Again, this was one of the main elements of McDowell's referendum.

Also, this idea of women turning up late in pregnancy having never previously registered with the hospital was spurious. The masters themselves said that an equivalent figure of women from Dublin did the same thing. Were those women trying to sponge something?

Finally, this referendum has introduced ethnicity into a republican constitution, which is the worst thing this country has done since its formation. A person's citizenship now depends on their parents' origin. Bravo, lads. And all this in the face of the Belfast Agreement. For the love of God, how much more do you need?

I'm not going to argue with you on your beliefs about people coming into the country. What I will argue on is the merits of this referendum. This wasn't some mickey mouse bi-election in Wicklow, this was a referendum on our constitution affecting how one can call oneself Irish and it came about as a result of one Minister who has lost the run of himself and intended to shield the government parties at the locals and european elections.

I don't believe the case for it was ever proved. If you voted yes because you believe in the integrity of citizenship and everyone - everyone - should have to earn citizenship instead of receiving it upon birth, then fine. I'll disagree with you on it but it's a reasonable point of view.

If you voted yes because you think "the issue was numbers" then you're misguided. If you think people were sponging from the system to a huge degree, this wasn't the time to voice your disagreement as this referendum won't change that. People still have a right to come here and claim asylum and with EU accession even more people are going to come looking for a decent job.

[1MickCollins]

While I don't agree with what you say about multi-culturalism you do provide some valid points. However the fact you live in the US probably shows why it seems such a failure to you. In Britain, people live side by side, not in seperate 'neighbourhoods'. Even the most ghettoised of us will have friends of other races and nationality and unlike in the US, we converse after the sun goes down. I spent NY Eve for the second year running with my Zimbabwean mate and all his friends up from London. Me, Conchita, and a Columbian and his wife the only Honkeys there. Imagine a majority black party and no drugs (a Columbian present also), not even a spliff and no guns and not one of them asked if I had a farm that they could burn down. Why did I go for two years coming? Because the first one was probably the best party I've ever been to.

As for thinking your children are a different nationality to you, well like most people stateside it seems, I'd check into an analyst.



No I wasn't thinking about the US, the US has been able to assimilate diverse populations better than most EU countries by the addictive diet of rampant consumption, cable TV and Hollywood. And when I say "assimilate" I do not mean mixed-marriages, I just mean immigrants learn to speak the predominant language of their new country and adopt the mores and 'secular' customs etc. It is usually the 2nd generation that assimilates.

I look at Holland & France and see very significant problems ahead for those countries, why would Ireland for one moment wish to inflict the unnecessary economic and social problems that will undoubtedly arise from unplanned ( and unnecessary ) immigration. If there is one thing we can trust successive Irish governments not to do is actually plan long term. I'm sure we will screw it up.