• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Cowen: "unintended consequences" of present Children's Referendum wording


FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Brian Cowen has told the Dail that the present proposed-wording of the Children's Rights Referendum would have "unintended consequences" if accepted. SF's Caomhin O'Caolain says the govt has rejected the 'All Party' wording agreed by the Oireachtas Committee. Meanwhile, Newstalk is reporting that the Attorney-General has drafted new wording for the amendment, which is likely to delay a referendum.
RTE said:
In the Dáil today, Brian Cowen said the wording would have 'unintended policy and resource implications' if adopted.
He said the drafting of the wording of the referendum is currently under way in the Attorney General's office and then has to go to Cabinet.
Mr Cowen said it is a question of getting it right and said the Government is committed to holding the referendum that would enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution.
This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.

What should happen now. One of the following:

- Either all the main parties agree to forget about this questionable proposition of holding a referendum on children's rights in the absence of wording to prevent abuse of the appeal's process by bogus asylum-seekers challenging their deportations on the basis of their having children with them in the State.

Or:

-The Government should amend the wording to prevent it being actionable in asylum-appeals cases and should then put it to a referendum.
 


Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
Brian Cowen has told the Dail that the present proposed-wording of the Children's Rights Referendum would have "unintended consequences" if accepted. SF's Caomhin O'Caolain says the govt has rejected the 'All Party' wording agreed by the Oireachtas Committee. Meanwhile, Newstalk is reporting that the Attorney-General has drafted new wording for the amendment, which is likely to delay a referendum.

This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.

What should happen now. One of the following:

- Either all the main parties agree to forget about this questionable proposition of holding a referendum on children's rights in the absence of wording to prevent abuse of the appeal's process by bogus asylum-seekers challenging their deportations on the basis of their having children with them in the State.

Or:

-The Government should amend the wording to prevent it being actionable in asylum-appeals cases and should then put it to a referendum.
Good News this!

Other than this Site I heard no mention of these unintended consequences from the Establishment media

- so it looks like we can put a feather in our caps on this one.

Hopefully we have done the State some service.:)
 

b.a. baracus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,230
This was discussed on the Late Debate on RTE Radio 1 last night. A number of "unintended consequences" of the wording were mentioned.

The presenter Cormac O Hara mentioned that one of these unintended consequences was that the legislation could be used by asylum seekers or illegal immigrants to prevent their deportation. The wording in it's current format would make it difficult, if not impossible, to deport any child. If you can't deport a child then you cannot deport it's parent's either. If it goes through in it's current form we may aswell just throw our gates open to the world because you can be sure that within a few weeks adults with children will start arriving from every corner of the world claiming asylum, knowing that they can never be removed.

By the way that moaning windbag Fergus Finlay said on the same show that the Department of Justice should not be deporting children anyway so the wording should stand. Good man Fergus - hope you will put up your share of those who arrive.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
This was discussed on the Late Debate on RTE Radio 1 last night. A number of "unintended consequences" of the wording were mentioned.

The presenter Cormac O Hara mentioned that one of these unintended consequences was that the legislation could be used by asylum seekers or illegal immigrants to prevent their deportation. The wording in it's current format would make it difficult, if not impossible, to deport any child. If you can't deport a child then you cannot deport it's parent's either. If it goes through in it's current form we may aswell just throw our gates open to the world because you can be sure that within a few weeks adults with children will start arriving from every corner of the world claiming asylum, knowing that they can never be removed.

By the way that moaning windbag Fergus Finlay said on the same show that the Department of Justice should not be deporting children anyway so the wording should stand. Good man Fergus - hope you will put up your share of those who arrive.
That's absolute lunacy from the Labour party, which should clarify whether it shares Fergus Finlay's stance on this question. It is irresponsible to grant an amnesty to every child that comes here, as - if passed into law - it would act as a magnet for people-traffickers and especially child-traffickers to lure children into their clutches, with potentially life-destroying consequences in Ireland or in transit to Ireland. Remember the dead trafficked-immigrants in Rosslare some years ago.

One of the most irritating aspects of this debate is the lie that the 1916 Proclamation promised to 'cherish all the children of the nation equally". It did not. It merely promised to "cherish all the children of the nation". On this lie is Paragraph 1 of the proposed referendum-wording based. :roll:
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
That's absolute lunacy from the Labour party, which should clarify whether it shares Fergus Finlay's stance on this question. It is irresponsible to grant an amnesty to every child that comes here, as - if passed into law - it would act as a magnet for people-traffickers and especially child-traffickers to lure children into their clutches, with potentially life-destroying consequences in Ireland or in transit to Ireland. Remember the dead trafficked-immigrants in Rosslare some years ago.
Labour don't have to clarify that, given that Finlay isn't an elected representative, or a Labour spokesman on anything.

One of the most irritating aspects of this debate is the lie that the 1916 Proclamation promised to 'cherish all the children of the nation equally". It did not. It merely promised to "cherish all the children of the nation". On this lie is Paragraph 1 of the proposed referendum-wording based. :roll:
Far more irritating is the belief some people hold that the reference to "the children of the nation" in 1916 actually means children (i.e minors) at all. It doesn't.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,765
It was discussed in detail on Drivetime last night as well. Finlay's interview was quite odd in it. He was involved in the divorce referendum in the 90s, and they went into detail about how that took a while to write up as well, specifically because of concerns over unintended consequences. Bascially said it should go ahead as is because he was comfortable with the current wording.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.
Politics.ie played no role, central or otherwise. Any view taken by Cowrn on this issue would have come from the Attorney General, who I'm fairly sure doesn't surf anonymous internet discussion boards in order to form legal opinions.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Link to last night's "Late Debate" here. The referendum issue is approx 45 minutes in.
Politics.ie played no role, central or otherwise. Any view taken by Cowrn
Cowen. :roll:
on this issue would have come from the Attorney General, who I'm fairly sure doesn't surf anonymous internet discussion boards in order to form legal opinions.Labour don't have to clarify that, given that Finlay isn't an elected representative, or a Labour spokesman on anything.
As a prospective Labour Presidential candidate, it is imperative that Labour clarify its position on this critical-matter of constitutional-change.
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,992
It was obvious that the referendum would have failed if there was any doubt on that issue. So would Finlay's preference be to lose the vote?

Of course it is going to be very difficult to put rights for children in the constitution on the basis that they only apply to Irish children. Do we even want to do that? I wouldn't vote for a proposal that was racist. Nor would I vote for one that contained the risk of making Ireland even more of a target for bogus asylum seekers.

I doubt we'll ever see this referendum.
 

Macy

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
772
We won't see the referendum because they'd have to hold the byelections - Andrews has been sat on this so long it must be stuck to his arse.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Drivetime yesterday on Children's Referendum here. Approx 40 minutes in.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,765
It was obvious that the referendum would have failed if there was any doubt on that issue. So would Finlay's preference be to lose the vote?
I think that's a leap. This is going to be called the Children's referendum, all parties and celebs are going to push it. The only people who will speak out against it, no matter what the wording is like, would be the likes of Kevin Myers et al. No one of note is going to be on the other side of the argument. You could include a passage on giving Donegal to the Brits and it would probably still be carried.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Labour and FG must be put under pressure to clarify their intentions on this in the event they form the next govt. The electorate do not want to insert yet another asylum-loophole into our legislative or constitutional framework. Contact: Senator Alex White (Labour Seanad Spokesman on Children), Brendan Howlin (Human Rights Spokesman), Kathleen Lynch (Equality Spokesperson), Jan O'Sullivan (Health) and Pat Rabbitte (Justice) and last but not least Eamon Gilmore. FG Spokespersons: Enda Kenny, James Reilly (Health and Children), Charlie Flanagan (Children), Frank Feighan (Equality), Alan Shatter (Justice).
 

lebowskilite

Active member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
127
Website
elchle.tumblr.com
Yes yes, the nation going down the tubes... PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEPORT CHILDREN!

Most of the world's asylum seekers seek said asylum (mostly without the knowledge of the authorities) in Pakistan, Sudan and the Congo. Your suggestion that Ireland's laws have anything to do with how many people are here is ridiculous. Asylum Seekers go where they can to escape political/social hardship.

The idea that you can take the moral highground over a refugee for coming here as part of some massive foreigners' conspiracy and then suggest the judicial thing to do is deport their kids is obsurd and obscene.

And yes, card carrying member of the Labour Party. I guess those are just my trade-union dominated commie-pinko-doesn't understand real life-unconsidered-protest-aimed-at-wealthy parents views.

Or, just perhaps, I do think that the World's children should be treated equally. It's pure meritocracy for one.
 

Macy

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
772
Labour and FG must be put under pressure to clarify their intentions on this in the event they form the next govt. The electorate do not want to insert yet another asylum-loophole into our legislative or constitutional framework.
Did you look deep in your heart to come to that conclusion? The electorate will have the chance to vote on it, whatever the wording, and make their own decision!
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
32,967

Ingersoll

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
234
Yes yes, the nation going down the tubes... PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEPORT CHILDREN!

Most of the world's asylum seekers seek said asylum (mostly without the knowledge of the authorities) in Pakistan, Sudan and the Congo. Your suggestion that Ireland's laws have anything to do with how many people are here is ridiculous. Asylum Seekers go where they can to escape political/social hardship.

The idea that you can take the moral highground over a refugee for coming here as part of some massive foreigners' conspiracy and then suggest the judicial thing to do is deport their kids is obsurd and obscene.

And yes, card carrying member of the Labour Party. I guess those are just my trade-union dominated commie-pinko-doesn't understand real life-unconsidered-protest-aimed-at-wealthy parents views.

Or, just perhaps, I do think that the World's children should be treated equally. It's pure meritocracy for one.
+1 - finally someone said it.

The very notion that those 'scrounging' asylum seekers are seeking a better life - even here, is clearly too much for some people. I despair of the Irish people when I read threads like this.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Yes yes, the nation going down the tubes... PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO DEPORT CHILDREN!

Most of the world's asylum seekers seek said asylum (mostly without the knowledge of the authorities) in Pakistan, Sudan and the Congo. Your suggestion that Ireland's laws have anything to do with how many people are here is ridiculous. Asylum Seekers go where they can to escape political/social hardship.

The idea that you can take the moral highground over a refugee for coming here as part of some massive foreigners' conspiracy and then suggest the judicial thing to do is deport their kids is obsurd and obscene.

And yes, card carrying member of the Labour Party. I guess those are just my trade-union dominated commie-pinko-doesn't understand real life-unconsidered-protest-aimed-at-wealthy parents views.

Or, just perhaps, I do think that the World's children should be treated equally. It's pure meritocracy for one.
The term "equality" should not mean that the entire population of the world should be allowed come to Ireland. The social-welfare system you Lefties claim to support would collapse under the strain, as would the health-service and schools which can't even cope with the existing population. Blaming a policy or process i.e. immigration-policy, is not to blame the immigrants themselves. Indeed, politicians have a tendency to use immigrants as metaphorical 'human shields' with which to close down debate on immigration-control by screaming 'Racist'. That is why the Left are dying in most of Europe today. The Vienna elections at the weekend where the SPD lost its overall majority being an example. Part of equality is freedom of speech.

My concept of equality is that we should not be discriminated against on certain inborn factors such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. However, citizenship is not necessarily an inborn characteristic, and is by definition discriminatory and unavoidably so - because nation's lose their power to determine their own future if others come in with an automatic right to vote in General Elections, and then impose potentially a form of government e.g. Sharia - that the host society does not want. The fact that a State may not confer on all that which it confers on some does not mean the State is not respecting the principle of equality at the level of inborn characteristics. I don't accept the fundamentalist-egalitarian position of the Left that wants to define equality in economic-terms in a manner that would leave the Irish taxpayer exposed to potentially billions in welfare-state entitlements to persons who have no connection - historical or present - with the State. We have seen what happens in the US with the Community Reinvestment Act when the Left try to translate a Hard Left ideology of 'equality' into the mortgage-market, which resulted in the subprime crisis. Whatever else Marx may have been, he hadn't a clue about economics, as the collapse of Communism has proved.
 
Last edited:

bob3344

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
7,089
Did you look deep in your heart to come to that conclusion? The electorate will have the chance to vote on it, whatever the wording, and make their own decision!
Pretty obvious how the electorate will go on this issue.

Theres nearly 1/2 million on the dole & a widespread perception that the majority of 'refugees' here played us.

The citizenship referendum passed overwhelmingly - and that was during the boom.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top