Government trying to amend law on non-EU spouses' rights

[MAKUSA]

It's called selective implementation, what the Irish govt tried to do.

[runie80]

I understand where walrusgumble is coming from.

I see your point. My only argument is that the people who have done nothing wrong and are genuine should not have to go through this nightmare.

I am against illegal immigration, sham marriages and other loopholes.
I am sure most of people with agree with this.

I hope Irish gov brings in a check and balance system to filter the right from wrong and not make everyone pay.

Regarding the Asian unions and etc etc I am not going to deal with hypothetical scenarios as it will just go on and on.

just read this.

Interesting development.
I would say as long as it does not affect genuine people I am all in favour of it.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0925/marriage.html

The Department of Justice believes it has uncovered a large number of 'sham marriages' between Latvians living in Ireland and people from the indian subcontinent.

The Government has alerted the Latvian authorities to the statistically abnormal number of marriages that would allow non-EU nationals to sidestep immigration laws.

The Department has given figures to its European counterparts that show 4,600 non-EU nationals may have married non-Irish EU citizens in order to exploit a loophole in an EU directive on the free movement of people.
Advertisement

Some 30% of the residency applicants were either failed asylum seekers or students who had outstayed their visas.

In 2006 Ireland implemented an EU directive enshrining the right of EU citizens to move and work freely throughout Europe.

The Government at the time understood that its own rules on whether non-European spouses of an EU citizen could also avail of that right were implicit in the directive.

However, when four asylum seekers who had married non-Irish EU citizens in Ireland took their case against deportation to the European Court of Justice the Court found that they were entitled to avail of the freedom of movement directive.

To Ireland, Denmark and a number of other countries, the so called Metock Case effectively allowed non-EU nationals to sidestep immigration law, simply by marrying non-Irish EU citizens - mostly people from Eastern Europe.

Since the July ruling the Government has been working with an EU panel exploring the fallout from the Metock case.

RTÉ News has obtained figures given to the panel on so called sham marriages.

- 4,600 non-EU nationals have applied for residence in Ireland - because they had married EU citizens - since the directive was introduced

- 30% of these were either failed asylum seekers or students who had outstayed their visas

- 10% of the EU spouses were Latvians

- 50% of the Latvians had married Pakistanis, Indians or Bangladeshis compared to only 39% who married non-EU citizens closer to home (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians, etc).

The Government says these marriages are statistically abnormal and cannot have arisen by chance.

At a meeting of EU Justice ministers in Brussels today Irish officials joined Denmark, Germany, Austria, the UK, the Czech Republic and Cyprus in calling for the Directive to be ammended to prevent what the Government feels is its exploitation by illegal immigrants.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern was unable to attend because of the pairing row with Fine Gael.

The Government has raised with the Latvian government the allegedly exaggerated numbers of Latvians marrying Pakistanis and other nationalities from the subcontinent.

At today's meeting there were reservations from other member states about opening up and ammending the directive.

Denmark, which led calls for the directive to be changed, was supported by Ireland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Britain and Cyprus.

When it was first adopted in 2004 the Government believed that its own rules - that a non-EU national would have to be resident in another EU member state before they could enjoy the entitlements of the freedom of movement directive - would be recognised by the directive.

However, the Metock ruling at the European Court of Justice in July, disagreed with this interpretation.

[/quote]

More
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/20 ... 62471.aspx

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 95413.html


http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... trParentID

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... phole.html