Alien babies are popping up everywhere. While most adults seem to find them faintly repulsive, primary school children absolutely adore them. Every time one appears in a playground, you can see a cluster of kids clucking over them, happily comparing the merits of the pink-hued ones versus the black ones, writes Breda O'Brien.
The aliens are to be found nestling in coloured goo in egg-shaped plastic pods. Myths about them abound: that they grow through eating the goo, and that if you have a boy and girl alien, they will produce babies through a hole in the girl alien's head. In fact, there are almost as many myths about the €2 alien babies as there are concerning the flesh-and-blood ones our Government seems so agitated about.
Take the Chen case, in which a Chinese woman flew from Britain to Belfast in order to give birth to a little girl, Catherine. Mrs Chen wanted to secure a right to remain in Britain for her newborn child, and for her son, husband and herself.
The opinion issued on this case, which is likely to be accepted by the European Court of Justice, says that the family is entitled to residence in the UK, by virtue of the baby's Irish citizenship.
The Irish Government believes this case is a vindication of the need for a referendum to remove citizenship from babies born on the island of Ireland who cannot claim a relationship to another Irish citizen. Think about China, where Mrs Chen became pregnant. There is heavy pressure to abort a second child, and draconian penalties if the pregnancy continues.
This resourceful and, incidentally, well-to-do Chinese family decided to go to Wales when the mother was about six months' pregnant, and from there, on advice of a lawyer, to Belfast.
What would the Irish Government have preferred? Perhaps that the family would have succumbed to governmental pressure and had an abortion? Or reared the child where considerable penalties exist for having two children?
In some Chinese provinces there are fines, ranging from three to eight times a couple's combined annual income, for daring to have a second child. There is also crippling social disapproval. What is there to be ashamed of in the fact that our citizenship regulations allowed this family to evade this oppression?
As for fears that the EU will be overrun, the legal opinion states that a child who is a national of a member-state is only entitled to residence in another member-state if she or he is covered by sickness insurance and has sufficient resources.
The family in question runs a successful business and will be no burden to Britain. So much for closing a legal loophole which poses a threat to an EU state. Instead, Britain has gained another Chinese family, presumably with the same work ethic which drives many Chinese and which has led them to prosper wherever they go. Had Mrs Chen chosen to fly to Dublin, we probably would have heard how women like her are overwhelming our maternity hospitals. Conveniently, the Government might neglect to mention that, as a result of the Hanly report, 10 maternity units in nine counties are due to close.
There is a huge outcry about the dangers of women presenting late in pregnancy or even in labour, when non-nationals are in question. What about women travelling long distances when in labour because the local maternity hospital is gone? Let us just say that governmental concern about maternal safety rings somewhat hollow, given the fact that it has exhibited little concern for pregnant women in rural areas or small towns.
The facts about women presenting late in pregnancy are scant, but what is available shows that almost half the women who do so are Irish. As for non-nationals, no figures are available as to what percentage represent so-called citizenship tourism.
The proposed referendum will build enormous anomalies into the system. For example, my cousin emigrated to the US just in time to serve in Vietnam. His grandchildren will be entitled to citizenship in Ireland, but the baby of a Filipina nurse may not be. Who has the stronger connection to Ireland, or who has rendered it more service?
Recently, in a "Rite and Reason" column in this newspaper, allegedly written by Bertie Ahern, he claimed that we needed clarity about the nature of the values that inform European society. Maybe he did write it, because there were classic Bertie tactics in it. He managed to talk about "spiritual heritage" and "spiritual traditions and insights of past generations", without ever using the C-word, Christianity.
He did say, however: "The spiritual inspiration for the proud European tradition of human rights and respect for the individual person is evident. It is reflected in the search for international justice, especially for those in the developing world."
In the tradition, the name of which Bertie dares not speak, hospitality to the stranger is a central virtue. We see little of that in Europe. Instead we see a policy, which consists of "keep them out, and if we can't keep them out, send them back as soon as possible".
Europe is spending billions on so-called border security. We may even soon be paying more money to the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, dubbed "Europe's last dictator", who has demanded many more millions than he already gets in order to prevent migrants arriving into the EU via his country.
Yet, even if we do pay off thugs like Lukashenko, or spend millions on radar around the Mediterranean, it will do nothing to solve the reasons why people migrate. All the millions spent are not stopping people, who just use riskier methods. Only tackling the root causes will change anything. Mrs Chen left China because it was oppressive. People do not lightly leave their homes and everyone they know.
The numbers of non-nationals giving birth here are falling, not rising. Instead of holding this referendum, the Government might have used its EU presidency to lobby for more evidence that we value the demands of our common spiritual heritage when it comes to the displaced people of the Earth. It did not do so. Reward it by voting No.