Gov’t must abandon new policy affecting EU citizens’ fam

[acme4242]

http://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/press_detail.php?id=146

[quote]
Press Release
Wednesday August 04, 2010

Gov’t must abandon new policy affecting EU citizens’ family members after High Court decision: ICI

The Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) has today renewed its call on the Irish Government to scrap newly introduced restrictions on the right of EU citizens’ family members to work in Ireland, in light of a High Court decision last week.

The ICI wrote to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform in May, pointing out its new policy, restricting access to employment, breached an EU Directive and would inevitably lead to court challenges.

The case, Decsi v the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, was brought after the change in policy, implemented by the Government from June 1, which restricted the right of non-EU citizen family members of EU citizens to work in Ireland until their application for a residence card had been processed. This routinely takes six months.

The case was brought by Brophy Solicitors.

The court’s decision on Friday makes clear that non-EU citizen family members of EU citizens have the right to work in Ireland while their applications for residence cards are being processed.

ICI senior solicitor Catherine Cosgrave said the court’s decision will be a great relief to many families whose job security was under threat from the Government’s policy.

“Our concern was that this new policy would cause unnecessary hardship for migrants lawfully living in Ireland,â€

[walkindublin]

acme4242:

Thanks for sharing this Great News.

[koded]

good judgement. They have also changed it on their website
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/EU ... y%20Rights

[Obie]

My confidence in the Irish judicary is further enforced.

A good day for community nationals right.

I only hope the DOJ will foot the bill for this unnecessary court case.

[Delaine]

This is such good news, thanks for sharing. Had been expecting this matter to take months to resolve, but it seems fairness and common sense actually does prevail at times.

[Monifé]

Excellent news! And even happier to have the solicitor that won the case as our solicitor

[9jeirean]

One still wonders what was "uncle John" on when he made such a ridiculous change in the first instance. Anyway, good riddance to one more of DOJ's no-brainers. Congratulations to all currently affected by the reversal.


9j

[Ben]

Bravo.

good judgement. They have also changed it on their website
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/EU ... y%20Rights

Now, if they could just update this page. (Current).

[acme4242]

Its in the National papers today, with the DOJ spin and lies included.
Why does the Press not analyses what the DOJ feed them

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 36283.html
[quote="Irish Times"]
New working restrictions repealed after legal defeat
:
The rules had been introduced in June due to Government concerns over
rising unemployment and its ongoing campaign to target so-called
“sham marriagesâ€

[walrusgumble]

[quote="acme4242"]Its in the National papers today, with the DOJ spin and lies included.
Why does the Press not analyses what the DOJ feed them

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 36283.html
[quote="Irish Times"]
New working restrictions repealed after legal defeat
:
The rules had been introduced in June due to Government concerns over
rising unemployment and its ongoing campaign to target so-called
“sham marriagesâ€

[walrusgumble]

One still wonders what was "uncle John" on when he made such a ridiculous change in the first instance. Anyway, good riddance to one more of DOJ's no-brainers. Congratulations to all currently affected by the reversal.


9j

John? As in John O'Donoghue????? Jesus boss he has not being the Minister for Justice since 2002. I believe you will find he was succeeded by a much tougher Minister, Michael McDowell.

[acme4242]

anyway, fair play to the Irish Justice system, I had expected the process
to take years, and I'm sure the DOJ had banked on that as well.

about John O'Donoghue he only attacked Irish Families.

McDowell continued the attack on Irish families, and ironically, his paw print
is on the last page of 2004/38/EC, so technically he passed it into EU law.
And he also is responsible creating the Metock mess.

Ahern (current) is attacking all families, with complete contempt for lawful rights
of Irish and EU families.

[9jeirean]

One still wonders what was "uncle John" on when he made such a ridiculous change in the first instance. Anyway, good riddance to one more of DOJ's no-brainers. Congratulations to all currently affected by the reversal.


9j

John? As in John O'Donoghue????? Jesus boss he has not being the Minister for Justice since 2002. I believe you will find he was succeeded by a much tougher Minister, Michael McDowell.

John, Dermot what does it matter? They both act the Muppet anyway. Yeah I remember Michael "the bulldozer". For all his supposed arrogance and 'disconnect' with the Dublin SE electorates, he wasn't as stupid as making such a ridiculous change as Dermot did.

We have to hand this one to the Irish judicial system. The speed at which this case was dealt with is commendable.

I had expected the process
to take years, and I'm sure the DOJ had banked on that as well.

Dermot must have been hoping that the same speed will apply as it does in the naturalization office

[Obie]

I am impressed with the absence of politics and biasness in the Irish Judicary system, upholding the rights of EU nationals and their family members.

In the UK however, the same cannot be said, the AIT and the courts, are going with the Governments interpretations as if it is more superior than Community law itself.

I am sure the swiftness with which this ruling was made must have taken the Justice department by surprice.

The were banking it would take year for this violation to be rectified, by then the misery and hardship they intended on inflict on these family members would have been executed.

Long live justice

[doesnotcompute]

A great day for justice - thank God the courts system has the sense to see reason and stand up to this ridiculous policy change on the part of the DoJ.

[thesmiler]

How will people who already received a letter from DoJ that they can get a stamp 3 endorsement be able to get the Stamp 4 now?

I went with my partner the day after the announcement to the GNIB to try and get the Stamp 4 (we never picked up the Stamp 3 endorsement) - we were told by the GNIB agent and the supervisor that unfortunately they are only following orders of DoJ and can only give us what is mentioned in the letter, although they were aware of the change. The supervisor even went out and got someone from DoJ EU Treaty Rights Section to talk to us. This guy from DoJ was very apologetic of not having better news yet and promised us that they would send updated letters out to everyone who got the original Stamp 3 letter the coming week (now last week) but unfortunately this has not arrived for us yet.

Is anyone else in the same situation? Did you receive an updated letter from DoJ or did you have any other luck in getting the Stamp 4?

[Dublin2011]

My friend got Stamp3 for EU1 application since last month. Today she's received a letter to go to change to Stamp4.

I think those who got Stamp3 will have this letter soon.

[acme4242]

more tripe in today paper feed form Irish Dept of Justice, preparing the
ground for more draconian laws to remove the rights and dignity to all
marriages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... ml?via=rel

Few legal means to restrict rise in bogus unions

In the Republic it is currently not illegal to take part in a sham marriage
for immigration purposes, or to accept cash in return for getting married.
Tough new rules proposed in the Immigration Bill have been watered
down in a recent draft of the Bill, although it would still define a sham
marriage for the first time in law.

walrusgumble what was this you where on about Family Law Acts,
if it exists please give me a link to the statute book.
As I said before, the Minister for Justice will keep the sham excuse running so
they can introduce broad laws to remove the rights and dignity to all
marriages.
At the end, I think they will introduce a simple fraud law or something,
but only after all common marriage rights are gone.

Its in the National papers today, with the DOJ spin and lies included.
Why does the Press not analyses what the DOJ feed them

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 36283.html

New working restrictions repealed after legal defeat
:
The rules had been introduced in June due to Government concerns over
rising unemployment and its ongoing campaign to target so-called
“sham marriagesâ€

[walrusgumble]

more tripe in today paper feed form Irish Dept of Justice, preparing the
ground for more draconian laws to remove the rights and dignity to all
marriages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... ml?via=rel

Few legal means to restrict rise in bogus unions

In the Republic it is currently not illegal to take part in a sham marriage
for immigration purposes, or to accept cash in return for getting married.
Tough new rules proposed in the Immigration Bill have been watered
down in a recent draft of the Bill, although it would still define a sham
marriage for the first time in law.

walrusgumble what was this you where on about Family Law Acts,
if it exists please give me a link to the statute book.
As I said before, the Minister for Justice will keep the sham excuse running so
they can introduce broad laws to remove the rights and dignity to all
marriages.
At the end, I think they will introduce a simple fraud law or something,
but only after all common marriage rights are gone.

Its in the National papers today, with the DOJ spin and lies included.
Why does the Press not analyses what the DOJ feed them

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 36283.html

New working restrictions repealed after legal defeat
:
The rules had been introduced in June due to Government concerns over
rising unemployment and its ongoing campaign to target so-called
“sham marriagesâ€

[acme4242]

thank you for the detailed reply

In my view, Justice should prosecute the sham, and protect
and maintain the rights of the genuine marriages.
Not remove rights from everyone.
To say "sham marriage are occurring because people are being
giving their EU family rights, that is why we needed to remove
EU family rights" is not correct nor justifiable.
And that is the propaganda the media are printing.

The General Registers office said there are indications that marriages of convenience are on the increase, most probably as a result of the Metock ruling by the European Court of Justice.
That judgment means that family members may move and reside freely within the territory of the EU, irrespective of where a marriage takes place.

Getting back to the links you sent, well the ones from America mean
nothing in the Irish context.
But one from The Irish Law society is interesting. But it seems to say
sham marriage is ok. Opposite to what I would have expected.
Am I missing something here ?

Other matters relating to consent: marriage for ulterior purposes/sham marriages
Occasionally, a marriage is contracted with some ulterior purpose in mind. The parties may for
instance marry with the sole purpose of obtaining favourable immigration status or to obtain certain
marital benefits.50 The question of such 'sham' marriages (as they are sometimes called) is one that
has been considered by the Irish Courts.

In summary, Irish law regards the motive to marry as irrelevant. Provided that the parties exchange
a full, free and informed consent to marry their motive in doing so is of no consequence to the
question of consent. As Barrington J. observed in R.S.J, v. J.S.J.51, people get married for "all sorts
of reasons, and their motives have not always been of the highest. The motive for marriage may
have been policy, convenience or self-interest." It cannot be said, he continued, that a marriage is
void "merely because one party did not love or had not the capacity to love the other."
In H.S. v. J.S.52 the Supreme Court (by a majority of 3-2) considered likewise that once the parties
had freely consented to be wed and understood the nature and consequences of that decision, it
mattered not that their motive or purpose in doing so was irregular or improper.

[walrusgumble]

thank you for the detailed reply

In my view, Justice should prosecute the sham, and protect
and maintain the rights of the genuine marriages.
Not remove rights from everyone.
To say "sham marriage are occurring because people are being
giving their EU family rights, that is why we needed to remove
EU family rights" is not correct nor justifiable.
And that is the propaganda the media are printing.

The General Registers office said there are indications that marriages of convenience are on the increase, most probably as a result of the Metock ruling by the European Court of Justice.
That judgment means that family members may move and reside freely within the territory of the EU, irrespective of where a marriage takes place.

Getting back to the links you sent, well the ones from America mean
nothing in the Irish context.
But one from The Irish Law society is interesting. But it seems to say
sham marriage is ok. Opposite to what I would have expected.
Am I missing something here ?

Other matters relating to consent: marriage for ulterior purposes/sham marriages
Occasionally, a marriage is contracted with some ulterior purpose in mind. The parties may for
instance marry with the sole purpose of obtaining favourable immigration status or to obtain certain
marital benefits.50 The question of such 'sham' marriages (as they are sometimes called) is one that
has been considered by the Irish Courts.

In summary, Irish law regards the motive to marry as irrelevant. Provided that the parties exchange
a full, free and informed consent to marry their motive in doing so is of no consequence to the
question of consent. As Barrington J. observed in R.S.J, v. J.S.J.51, people get married for "all sorts
of reasons, and their motives have not always been of the highest. The motive for marriage may
have been policy, convenience or self-interest." It cannot be said, he continued, that a marriage is
void "merely because one party did not love or had not the capacity to love the other."
In H.S. v. J.S.52 the Supreme Court (by a majority of 3-2) considered likewise that once the parties
had freely consented to be wed and understood the nature and consequences of that decision, it
mattered not that their motive or purpose in doing so was irregular or improper.

America is part of the common law jurisdiction, and like British Law (and Canadian and Australian) it is often quoted to a judge

You really think the Supreme Court eg Hardiman and Fennelly will, if they get the opportunity to draw a similar view as Barrington J

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

How will people who already received a letter from DoJ that they can get a stamp 3 endorsement be able to get the Stamp 4 now?

I went with my partner the day after the announcement to the GNIB to try and get the Stamp 4 (we never picked up the Stamp 3 endorsement) - we were told by the GNIB agent and the supervisor that unfortunately they are only following orders of DoJ and can only give us what is mentioned in the letter, although they were aware of the change. The supervisor even went out and got someone from DoJ EU Treaty Rights Section to talk to us. This guy from DoJ was very apologetic of not having better news yet and promised us that they would send updated letters out to everyone who got the original Stamp 3 letter the coming week (now last week) but unfortunately this has not arrived for us yet.

Is anyone else in the same situation? Did you receive an updated letter from DoJ or did you have any other luck in getting the Stamp 4?

You might consider suing GNIB or DOJ to recover lost wages. They have prevented you from working when you legally should have been able to. It will get their attention really fast!

[fatty patty]

Look at the many threads here that ask questions about this. Look at how their main concerns were about their stamp as oppose to fixing the marriage.

eemmm....its immigration boards??!!!?? dah.

If they're having marital problems it should be on post traumatic stress disorder board not here.