Wife accuses Minister over deportation of husband

[sovtek]

But Fields of Athenry were about a foreign nation deporting an Irish person from their lands and relocating (nicest word i can think of atmo) to another country

Really, actually, the wee place was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Micheal, who disowned his UK citizenship was an alien to the Crown, who ran the then Department of Justice Equality and law reform.

He was not deported, he was relocated... fair enough, I'll give you that one.

Good point.

[walrusgumble]

But Fields of Athenry were about a foreign nation deporting an Irish person from their lands and relocating (nicest word i can think of atmo) to another country

Really, actually, the wee place was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Micheal, who disowned his UK citizenship was an alien to the Crown, who ran the then Department of Justice Equality and law reform.

He was not deported, he was relocated... fair enough, I'll give you that one.

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH you got me! Legally yeah, fair point, and if your non Irish, well done on coping that one. Blutantly and offically he was deported.

It depends on what side of the road you take your politics and nationality really (don't worry I ain't an armchair 800 years etc Republican)

But you would be aware that for some, despite the inconvenient truth, Britain had no right in Ireland and never had any right in ireland. Michael never disowned his British citizenship because to him, he was never British but Irish (of course thats simply one way of thinking about it, who knows maybe he like Queen Victoria, one second thoughts, the Famine Queen....) He rebelled against British Forces assuming IRB rebellion in 1860's - so I doubt, in his mind he considered himself British

[IrishTom]

But Fields of Athenry were about a foreign nation deporting an Irish person from their lands and relocating (nicest word i can think of atmo) to another country

Really, actually, the wee place was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Micheal, who disowned his UK citizenship was an alien to the Crown, who ran the then Department of Justice Equality and law reform.

He was not deported, he was relocated... fair enough, I'll give you that one.

Using your logic, the mayor of Limerick was calling for the relocation of the unemployed eastern european migrants and not their deportation.

I suggest you look up the word in your dictionary. Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country.

[walrusgumble]

Yes, deporting a failed asylum seeker back to his country of origin is similar to the transportation of an Irish man to Australia for petty theft.

yes, of course Ahern would use the words "unemployed Insurgent with criminal conviction"

When Ahern considers it acceptable to implement reverse discrimination against the Irish, and makes decisions based on class or race, and considers the Irish family somehow less worthy, its exactly like the earlier administration.

http://irelandsreversediscrimination.wordpress.com/

I don't think its got anything to do with race, colour etc. Its because of their LEGAL STATUS. The same would occur if the non national was American who has no entitlement to Irish/EU citizenship (i wonder though)

If you look at INIS, it has, for years made its position very clear on this position. So why get married if you think that will help you get status, why go through with all the crap? Love? please, normally yes, but be honest, how many consider that (ie genuine ones) Ye don't need to be married to be in a loving relationship?

Seriously though, for point of valid and decent debate, can anyone point out any countries that accept illegal non nationals residency on basis of marriage?

It is sickening though with the reserve discrimination when you happen to be from a visa required country and treated with suspicion, even if that spouse was legal in their own right before marriage

So you believe a person right to marry should be based upon nationality?
I am in fact in a relationship with an Irish national and have " no right to citizenship". You will see what will happen if there is an attempt to seperate us against our will.

A person has a choice of who they marrying and have an unqualified right to marry. Period. 9 times out of 10 one does not choose what nationality they fall in love with. So no, absolutely not, I do not believe a right to marry should be based upon nationality.

However, you are missing the point here; Ireland has not stopped the family's right to marry. THey simply are stopping their right to reside solely on basis of marriage. Point being, why put yourself through hassle of marrying if you know it will mean separation if you don't wish to live with spouse elsewhere where there is no obstacles in doing so. Second, would they have bothered getting married in the first place if they foresaw what would happen.

The laws are the laws, and can not be hajacked. Get married, but don't expect absolute right to reside if you were illegal before hand as it potentially creates serious loop holes.

Sovek, I assume you are legal. You won't have any problems residing on the basis of marriage if you wish to marry

By the way, less of the pumped up action you will see what will happen, sorry sir, respectively, are you going to take on the whole of the GNIB? really? what would you do about it if you don't have the law on your side? Respectively, if the gentleman in the post had that attitude, he would be thrown into the plane faster than you finished that sentence. The minister is not trying to separate you, if the marriage is genuine, sincere efforts would be made to go and live elsewhere

Again, you miss the point. In order to say no, the Minister would have to look at the following, in order to lawful say no
(1) look at length of time in Ireland
(2) length of time in pre and post marriage
(3) children? their ages? Education?
(4) Family commitments in Ireland
(5) is there a family life
(6) Could they reasonably be expected to live elsewhere?

Respectively, I again ask to kindly point out at least three countries that would accept this situation where the spouse is not legal

[smalltime]

ladies and gentlemen all i can say is just read this post from irishtom and you will know what kind of person he is.

I have a lot of irish friends and been telling this to them about irishtom and guess what they told me....

43 nations operate the exact same polciy, including the economic powerhouse that is Japan.

this nations ofcourse must protect their border from mass immigration i agree with you. but how about those people that works here and contributed to the economy and i will tell you companies need these immigrants.(unless you own a family business and run by yourself, mister tom.)

work immigrants need money and better life in return they sell their skills thats how it works mr tom in case you dont understand it. many years of work and they grow old too like the rest of us.
so if you are the taoiseach of this country would you deny these people citizenship?

[IrishTom]

so if you are the taoiseach of this country would you deny these people citizenship?

I would take the Japanese approach, yes.

[walrusgumble]

ladies and gentlemen all i can say is just read this post from irishtom and you will know what kind of person he is.

I have a lot of irish friends and been telling this to them about irishtom and guess what they told me....

43 nations operate the exact same polciy, including the economic powerhouse that is Japan.

this nations ofcourse must protect their border from mass immigration i agree with you. but how about those people that works here and contributed to the economy and i will tell you companies need these immigrants.(unless you own a family business and run by yourself, mister tom.)

work immigrants need money and better life in return they sell their skills thats how it works mr tom in case you dont understand it. many years of work and they grow old too like the rest of us.
so if you are the taoiseach of this country would you deny these people citizenship?

How does your comment, though extremely valid, relate in any way with the news artilces in question and context of this particular discussion ie spouses of citizens? THis thread relates to spouse of an irish citizen being deported not about a non national's entitlement to citizenship. It is about the right to reside on basis of marriage to an irish national. So lets keep to that issue in this thread.

(to make a quick point though, the reason for the country's openess to low skilled immigrants was because at a time of economic success, the country wanted to expand further and thus NEEDED extra workers. Ireland get workers; some cheap. The worker gets a chance to earn more money than they would in their own country. both win. Now they are not needed as their are no jobs. The immigrant moves on - since when do people quickly grow old in a period of 5 years???? 5 years can hardly say one is established or settled? At this time, if the immigrant still has a job, fair enough, they have a place here and should be made welcome, but business now don't need immigrants as its own people are willing and well able to work)

[smalltime]

so if you are the taoiseach of this country would you deny these people citizenship?

I would take the Japanese approach, yes.

Japanese Naturalization

The Minister of Justice must approve all applications for naturalization. Review of an application generally takes about one year.
The criteria for naturalization are provided in Article 5 of the Nationality Act:

Continuous residence in Japan for five years or more
At least 20 years old and otherwise legally competent
History of good behavior generally, and no past history of seditious behavior
Sufficient capital or skills, either personally or within family, to support oneself
Stateless or willing to renounce foreign citizenship
See Japanese Naturalization

The Minister of Justice may waive the age and residence requirements if the applicant has a special relationship to Japan (for example, a Japanese parent).

The Nationality Act also provides that the Diet of Japan may confer Japanese nationality by special resolution to a person who has provided extraordinary service to Japan. However, this provision has never been invoked.

For many years naturalized citizens were required to adopt a Japanese family name.[3] This requirement was abolished in the late 1980s.[citation needed] A well-known example of someone who did not adopt a Japanese name is Masayoshi Son, the wealthiest man in Japan as of 2007, who naturalized using his Korean family name rather than the Japanese family name he used during his youth.[4]


mate im from asia im i tellin you there are loads of immigrants in japan
japanese like skilled immigrants not like irishtom hahaha

when i was small i have neighbors that work in japan for years and they have japanese passports.

[smalltime]

deported back to his country is right because thats the law anyway he could come back soon because he the husband of the iris citizen.

irishtom can i ask you this as well

5 years waiting for naturalisation and 3 years in a limbo if youll ever get citizenship even though you came here LEGALLY as a worker, now with family paying tax and still working,mortgage, used to the life here. (adapted to become irish) do i have to wait long without peace of mind knowing that if i get a speeding ticket i might not be naturalised.

Right or Wrong?

walrusgamble,

it started from irishtom asking right or wrong about the deportation of your man then I replied above and the rest just picked up from there.
does it make sense?

grow old like waiting for five years plus 3 years waiting approval some are here for ages like more than 15 years have a family etc thats what I mean ...my point they are here long enough and want to stay here are will irishtom welcome them? he wont he only want with irish ancestry

back in the farm,
that guy will come back... via family reunification.

[kabuki]

The laws are the laws, and can not be hajacked.

This argument can go on forever, and I, like almost everyone else, have my own opinion of immigration. However, I would like to make one point about the above quote as it is one of the biggest problems here. Immigration 'law,' as well as other 'laws' in Ireland, aren't really law by definition, they are only guidelines. This is what I have issues with. This is what makes people distrust the system even more.

A bit off topic, but needed to share after the comment above.

[acme4242]

The laws are the laws, and can not be hajacked.

This argument can go on forever, and I, like almost everyone else, have my own opinion of immigration. However, I would like to make one point about the above quote as it is one of the biggest problems here. Immigration 'law,' as well as other 'laws' in Ireland, aren't really law by definition, they are only guidelines. This is what I have issues with. This is what makes people distrust the system even more.

A bit off topic, but needed to share after the comment above.

kabuki, not off topic at all,

Ireland implemented reverse discrimination in the context of Immigration but did not write it into Law, So it appears the Irish Policy of inequality to Irish citizens, compared to Union Citizens has no legal basis in Irish Law. Unlike the British or Danes who clearly wrote inequality into their law.

Ireland has a choice to give equality or not to its own Citizens, but to choose and implement inequality must be subject to legislative approval, which it did not get.

The Irish Law says, the privileges apply to Union citizens, it did not exclude Irish citizens. Nor put any conditions on its own citizens. Unlike the British Law. To restate it again, Ireland’s reverse discrimination has no basis in Irish Law.

Unlike Britain, Denmark or Germany
http://irelandsreversediscrimination.wo ... imination/

[scrudu]

I don't think its got anything to do with race, colour etc. Its because of their LEGAL STATUS. The same would occur if the non national was American who has no entitlement to Irish/EU citizenship (i wonder though)

If you look at INIS, it has, for years made its position very clear on this position. So why get married if you think that will help you get status, why go through with all the crap? Love? please, normally yes, but be honest, how many consider that (ie genuine ones) Ye don't need to be married to be in a loving relationship?

Seriously though, for point of valid and decent debate, can anyone point out any countries that accept illegal non nationals residency on basis of marriage?

It is sickening though with the reserve discrimination when you happen to be from a visa required country and treated with suspicion, even if that spouse was legal in their own right before marriage

In this situation the spouse of the Irish citizen was illegally present in Ireland as he had failed in his asylum case previously. Why he was still here in May 2009 (date of marriage) instead of being deported after his asylum case failed?

There is currently no connection between the GRO and INIS so Immigration have no idea who is marrying or when. I presume that this is why they didn't know that Mr. Olabode had married. The fact that this information was not on his file suggests that they did not inform INIS after the marriage in Mar/2009. Pretty dumb move on their part given all that's happened.

It does seem unfair that illegal non-EU spouses of EU citizens are granted the right to stay in Ireland while illegal non-EU spouses of Irish citizens are not allowed though.

What I find a lot more frustrating though, is the fact that when the non-EU (non visa-exempted) fiance of an Irish citizen enters the country legally having advised INIS in their visa application that they are entering to marry their Irish spouse, that they are forced to leave the country after the marriage. Unlike non-EU spouses of EU citizens in Ireland, they are afforded no rights to stay in Ireland.

There is no concept of "Marriage Visas/Fiance Visa" to allow people to legally enter the country to marry an Irish citizen. No matter how above board you try to be (application for Marriage Licence to Registrar, visa application to marry in Ireland), once the tourist visa expires you have to leave your Irish spouse and return home just to apply to come back again. How stupid is that? Again, non-EU spouses of European citizens are not faced with the same situation.

[sovtek]

The laws are the laws, and can not be hajacked.

This argument can go on forever, and I, like almost everyone else, have my own opinion of immigration. However, I would like to make one point about the above quote as it is one of the biggest problems here. Immigration 'law,' as well as other 'laws' in Ireland, aren't really law by definition, they are only guidelines. This is what I have issues with. This is what makes people distrust the system even more.

A bit off topic, but needed to share after the comment above.

It's not off topic at all.
I would go one further and say that no one can be "illegal" or "illegally" in Ireland. Especially when they make things up as they go along.
It's like the guy who was on strike at Green Isle. He was fired "illegally" and told to be reinstated or compensated. Then he goes on strike, which he has every right to do, just to get the company to give him what he is "legally" entitled to. Then the INIS decides "oh wait you're illegal because you aren't working now get out" quite "coincidentally" when he's about to go on hunger strike just to obtain what he's "legally" entitled to. When the "law" works like that then society has every right not to respect it.

[sovtek]

this nations ofcourse must protect their border from mass immigration i agree with you.

Actually humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without immigration. It's a relatively new thing and there is no reason to think we couldn't live without it.
Yeah thats off topic.

[walrusgumble]

The laws are the laws, and can not be hajacked.

This argument can go on forever, and I, like almost everyone else, have my own opinion of immigration. However, I would like to make one point about the above quote as it is one of the biggest problems here. Immigration 'law,' as well as other 'laws' in Ireland, aren't really law by definition, they are only guidelines. This is what I have issues with. This is what makes people distrust the system even more.

A bit off topic, but needed to share after the comment above.

Good point I agree fully. And I too do not believe its off topic, very much nailing the main issue

I am refering to these guidelines and how the courts will not interfere with same

[smalltime]

this nations ofcourse must protect their border from mass immigration i agree with you.

Actually humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without immigration. It's a relatively new thing and there is no reason to think we couldn't live without it.
Yeah thats off topic.

off topic as well:

good point sovtek but things change ...population of the world increased.