Sorry in advance if this creates a topic within a topic, but it is still related to the ruling:
There were three arguments presented at today's Court of Appeal hearing. To paraphrase:
- Jones (appellant): Spent 100 days out of Ireland in the year before he applied, thinks this is reasonable, and that the Minister should apply discretion and give him citizenship.
- Minister: Has been applying discretion to time out of Ireland (6 weeks or 42 days), wants to continue doing this, and thinks Jones' 100 days is too long.
- High Court Judge: Doesn't think the law allows the Minister any discretion and that continuous residence means no time out of Ireland at all.
I disagree with Jones. 100 days just seems to long to me. UK, as an example, allows up to 90 days.
I therefore agree with the Minister that 100 days is too long. However, rather than discretion, I'd prefer to see a clear policy or regulation so it's more black and white.
I think the Judge was pedantic and narrow in defining
continuous. However, in comparison to other countries' citizenship policies and processes, Ireland is so opaque and vague that it needs an overhaul and for these type of requirements to be written down. It would make it a lot easier for applicants if there were clear definitions of processes and requirements (... and I think it would make it easier for INIS as well). However, I would have preferred this debate didn't happen in the middle of my application!