Morrisj wrote:walrusgumble wrote:Morrisj wrote:
lol if u think am scared of the past government's mess then u must be outta ur mind,watch what i say?u r really a s...bag if u think i am scared of anything i say what i want especially when its right.
u r still making irrelevant stuff cos to be honest i repeat my objection started when u created that Romanian and Bulgarian topic and that seems to cease cos u aint discussing it anymore so what f..uck r u still going on about moaning like a baby ohhhhh i see like u rein enforced with some of ur partial immigration colleagues to reply me last post?
Annoymonus or not am not scared and whatever i said aint allegations they were objections to u and some other dearly beloved officials in d department and i can bodly say this 2 their face if i was given d chance cos am a free man and u can also go back n tell them i told u so punk[/u]
I was not referring to "past government mess", i was referring to false insinuations made by you suggesting that I am a dearly beloved. The words "defamation" might have give a clue. The fact that others here would question your insinuations are another. The fact i made reference to the "internet" indicates the problems one has to succeed in such a claim. But noted progress is been made to deal with this. "watch what you say" referred the the fact that people should be careful with what they say on this medium as they would not get away with it on another medium such as press or tv.
again, the childless romanian and bulgarian issue is correct, at this present moment. so it is not irrelevant. if you are unable to show that you are self employed. failing to talk about this issue every single post does not mean that one has dropped it. so "seemed" does not mean "you have". the position, as another correctly posted, says that this problem may need by 2014, i have stated, i would rather wait and see. its not 2014 is it? until then, the position remains the same, as i have suggested. now if you want to be stupid enough to run your line again, go knock yourself out.
you can't tell the difference, that it not my problem. you have actually said nothing in your objection as to why its irrelevant. i never ceased to use it, but as the discussion went on by others to other areas, it would then be irrelevant to use it when addressing their statements. you also have the expectation of others to be capable of reading posts in full and to go back to older posts for clarification.
i also gave a few more examples which you never even attempted to rebut. never mind the fact that the childless romanian / bulgarian class is gets dominant feature in all my posts anyway. but you still go on to say its irrelevant. you have been asked to specifically state why its irrelevant. you have not done so. so stop lying. maybe you could deal with the other examples put to the debate. my feeling is that it could expose the possible self serving (understandable) hyprocrisy of your stance or even, a lack of understanding of what the ecj preach but unwittingly fail to do
"ohhhhh i see like u rein enforced with some of ur partial immigration colleagues to reply me last post?"
what does this mean? i am a bit lost, you referring to me suggesting that you should check the posts of the other sites to see that i am apparently not along on this issue? i was simply pointing out to the stupidity of you doing the same in the first place.
"Annoymonus or not am not scared and whatever i said aint allegations they were objections to u and some other dearly beloved officials in d department and i can bodly say this 2 their face if i was given d chance cos am a free man and u can also go back n tell them i told u so punk"
well, i am glad you are not scared, there is such thing as free speech. but be prepared to be ridiculed when you are in the so wrong, oh, and don't go running home screaming dearly beloved when thigs don't go your way. i really hoped that you enjoy the same freedom hear as you did back home. but by all means cheerish your rights. but maybe you should look at your country before decrying such remarks. ( i accept this might be unfair to generalise as you may not be from places that i assume that you are from, but you never disclose it) objections are not a problem. the problem is been accused by unqualified people to suggest interpretion of a law or an assumption that a law always was interpretted in a certain way when they are wrong.
punk? lay of the clint eastwood films. well its a shame that illegal immigrants did not have the same "courage" as you. that they would attend the gnib when called and not evade legal deportation orders (not related to zambrano)
they are allegations. its not dearly beloved to have an immigration procedures. liberty was taking of these in the 1990's by people who don't give a damn about this country yet wanted to wrap the flag around them for protection. many have given genuine asylum seekers a bad name and piss on the hassle other decent non eu people had by coming here legally by getting work permits. for the record, the department should be far more understanding to them. but that does not matter now with zambrano, for now that is.but continue to use those lines, you never know,some day (decade) someone other than the pc media, will take you seriously.
Now u r making a bit more sense here yes there is no way the respective Government of the Romanians and Bulgarians would allow such a thing to continue after 2014 am sure of that.
I do agree they r less favoured compared to the non-nationals that will be benefiting from the Zambrano but this was also how the Irish were less favoured compared to other Eu nationals under the Eu treaty, my question u didn answer previously was,is it right 4 other Eu citizen to ve more right than an Irish In ireland? if it;s right under the Eu law why is it that non-nationals having more right than the Romanians and Bulgarians which was indirectly made by the Ecj (Zambrano case) is not right under the same Eu law?
Thats where i think am getting the dearly beloved image of u, fine u might not be a dearly beloved but incase u dnt know ur posts r mixed with few relevant info and statements that potrays beloved.
The Ecj ruling favoured the non nationals and some Irish married to non nationals with Children and i strongly believe the Romanians and Bulgarians who had Irish children during the IBC whatever and of which their application for residency was refused due to some minor problem can now benefit from the Zambrano as well (as we both know not all parents of Irish citizen were given residency during the IBC)
The above line composed mainly the set of people which includes the Romanians and Bulgarians and please note on the long run Romanians and Bulgarians can benefit widely from the Zambrano if they r residing for example Ireland n have kids born there, the kids can become Irish Citizen 3-4 years according to the Irish Citizenship Law.
Now the above statement should be clear to you,cant you see not only the non nationals can benefit from Zambrano case?even the Romanians and Bulgarians can as well. I bet if the zambrano case only favoured the set of people i mentioned above exlcuding non nationals ur heart would have been filled up with so much joy.
New minister Alan Shatter even complained about the partiality of some decision maker in the DOJ when Dermot Ahern was in charge
find his statement on d link below
http://www.alanshatter.ie/?p=1597
I cry bitterly in me heart and same time glad you didnt work with the decision making unit when you were with the DOJ cos your decision would v been so harsh when it comes to proportionality and i bet my life if u were to be the minister,u would deport many non-national unlawfully with your so called strategies of facial discrimination,
U pretend to give relevant info but wisely use that opportunity to display your hatred for non nationals and many people dnt know see this yet cos they only read what you write but dont pay attention to the real MEANING of the things you write.
U know what?lets wait for the day the Ecj will rule against non nationals i.e all non-nationals should leave each of the member states,i can picture you already smiling and sayin to your self '' awwww i wish this could really happen) but u know what it will never happen lol
The Ecj (zambrano case)were wrong for interfering as you stated , if zambrano ruling went against non-nationals you wud have been like '' oh yeah the Ecj r f..king great,they r doing a good job.isn't that what u wud v been saying by now? U MAKE ME LAUGH SOMETIMES U KNOW
If you were in front of me now. You were not the sharpish tool in school were you? Did you actually read anything that has been said? Or the politics.ie site which you love referring too? Can you tell the difference between romanians with children (i was NOT talking about them) to Romanians who don't have children but wish to come here (this is what I was talking about)
Why the feck did you not read the whole contributions of everyone's posts before belting out on a key pad? Stop acting the idiot. " oh you make sense"? Clown, we discussed that ages ago, if you are too lazy to read the posts of all in its entirity then do not comment. (that goes for the politics.ie site too, afterall, you raised it) hence there was not a need to drag the childless Romanian/Bulgarian issue up again. The deadline is 2014, but I would not be surprised if that is extended or the EU gives member states discretion as to what they want to do, just like what happened in 2004 when Poland and co joined. On that example to stupidity alone, your comments of matters being irrelevant could not be taken seriously. You have clearly entered a discussion with little or know understanding of the political and legal problems in the EU today.
There is no way? Why not? France (remember what the President did with the Roma people, who may have Romanian nationality) and Germany could very well raise the issue. Why was it in the first place? Why were there restrictions to the Polish when they joined? You don't know for certain. And you are completely missing the point.
Again you say its irrelevant. But you don't say why? Do you even know what was said? Let me break it down for you. THe EU is there for EU citizens. Before Chen, that would have expected to be adults. Then the baby tourism occurred and the EU dealt with this. Now, Zambrano basicially says, two parents from outside the EU (one of whom may never have entered the EU and never seen their child - this is fact - and has happened). THey have no connection with the EU. THey entered illegally (ie no passports) and make frivolous asylum claims (ju ju magic, shrines, FGM) The laws on citizenship were liberal. THe newly born child was born in an EU state and is now a citizen. Bang, Zambrano lets them stay even if they need the state to help them to raise the child. Afterall there are no jobs. Now compare this to the position of a German national. He comes to Ireland as expected by the laws dictating the conditions of this EU citizenship (directive 2004/38 EC) he works for 1 year. Sadly, he loses job. He now becomes a job searcher as allowed. He draws welfare as allowed. 2 years later he meets an Non EU. Her legal status is not relevant via Metock. THey marry. they have yet to have children. Her residency on the basis of marriage to a person with far more rights than the baby boom tourists, is refused because the eu man can't proove that he is self sufficient, self employed or working.
The question was, is not fair? By your defintition(and not mine), this is reverse discrimination. By your definition (and not mine) the EU is open to allow and we eu citizens have an absolute right to reside and work anywhere in the EU (actually, there are limits, but not excessive. I put it to you that the German (regardless of colour or original nationality - I am aware Germany has a strongish African community)The EU proudly announces to remove barriers and nationality is irrelevant. Yet look what they have done. You read the article from Maastrict University?
Returning to the Childless Romanian and Bulgarian issue. What valid objection could you possibly have? These non eu parents are not restricted from working. Yet if a young childless Bulgarian or Romanian wants to come here for more than 3 months, they need work permits. No good telling them, ah wait until 2014. Not only do we have discrimination of nationality but also of age and family status. Since 1998, most EU states have changed their laws as to automatic citizenship in order to stop the trend of baby tourism (thats the offical name by the way) The dogs on the street knows why. I am not complaining about the immigrant who enjoys this new right but the stupid ECJ and EU Council for not thinking this over. I am also complaining that this interpretation has never been put to the people via treaty admendments.
"I do agree they r less favoured compared to the non-nationals that will be benefiting from the Zambrano but this was also how the Irish were less favoured compared to other Eu nationals under the Eu treaty, my question u didn answer previously was,is it right 4 other Eu citizen to ve more right than an Irish In ireland? if it;s right under the Eu law why is it that non-nationals having more right than the Romanians and Bulgarians which was indirectly made by the Ecj (Zambrano case) is not right under the same Eu law?"
What are you talking about. Stop talking boll0xs. This is completely irrelevant.. How were the Irish less favoured under the Treaty? Ireland has their status proportionate to its size like other EU states. It allies with the UK for alot of issues. THe barometers for the past decade had shown that the Irish people trust the EU, It was consistently in the top 5 countries as pro europe. The current bail out issues has nothing to do with the topic we are talking about. The treaty gives us Irish the same rights as others if we move to another country. The approach you refer to was a domestic decision .The Irish government put that in place. THe irish approach was its own making. If any non eu was legal at the time of creating the family, whether marriage or child with an Irish citizen, they will get status. It was correct to stamp out engineering of non eu's facing deportation trying to engineer marriages etc after the deportation order. The irish did not ask for this EU intervention. Because it was an internal matter and not reverse discrimination. It was a further breach of our soverign laws which, this time, the EU had no express authority to touch. The Treaty states that the conditions on citizens are subject to conditions. Those conditions are Directive 2004/38 EC. Now we have this made up artifical judgment.
Word to the wise. Learn to write in English. You are not texting. I do not apologise for the comments. They are 100% factually true. I have told you to refer to the courts.ie and bailii.org and RAC, this is where the facts are coming from. You have a mental block of not understanding people demand adherance to immigration procedures. It has nothing to do with race, colour etc. It is true that some asylum seekers are liars and chancers and do give their country a bad name. Its fact. It is true the people came here with the attention of a new life and had a baby but instead of making work permits etc they made false claims for asylum. So stating facts is now beloved? I have said it before on another site, i do not care about one's colour /race. I would take this approach even if the person was a white catholic amercian with long lost irish family connection (but no citizenship)
"Ecj ruling favoured the non nationals and some Irish married to non nationals with Children and i strongly believe the Romanians and Bulgarians who had Irish children during the IBC whatever and of which their application for residency was refused due to some minor problem can now benefit from the Zambrano as well (as we both know not all parents of Irish citizen were given residency during the IBC)"
Yes that is correct, many Romanians claimed to be members of gyspie groups on asylum claims. They were here long before Nigerians became popular. But, here is where you are being irrelevant. On countless occassions i don't just say Bulgarian/ Romanian. I say
childless Bulgarian Romanian. So please stop acting so bloody stupid. The
distinction was made clear from day one. (to make simple distinction between r and b with children and r and b who don't have children. Please note. R=Romanian. B= Bulgarain. I assume you know what it means to be childless) You have had the arrogance to talk about others being irrelevant. Why don't you attempt to understand what's being said before coming across like some self appointed expert.
I bet if the zambrano case only favoured the set of people i mentioned above exlcuding non nationals ur heart would have been filled up with so much joy.
Not really, the Romanian and Bulgarians were top of the asylum candidate list with Nigerians before 2004. They too took advantage of the liberal citizenship laws knowing full well that international asylum law would kick them out until asylum. Again its a case that procedures where abused. I do not care what there nationality was. For you to raise such a statement smacks of defensiveness and your own "look after youself mentality"
"pretend to give relevant info but wisely use that opportunity to display your hatred for non nationals and many people dnt know see this yet cos they only read what you write but dont pay attention to the real MEANING of the things you write."
pretend? The information hits the hail on the head. Check the facts for yourself. go to the sites. I hate you. Not because of your background (your irish for all i know or care) but because you come across as an idiot and self serving hyprocrite. heil.
Where are you from? Your country men tolerant towards your fellow tribes/country men. How is relgious tolerance in your country? trust in government? Treatment of people of other colours? What about you, really? Your response and avoidance of home truths says alot about you.
Before parading about Shatter, lets see how he performs. One does not, genuinely, that he keeps his pro jewish israeli attitude (feel free to check his history) to himself and not prejudice those of muslim faith and or from places like Palestine or Somalia.
"The Ecj (zambrano case)were wrong for interfering as you stated , if zambrano ruling went against non-nationals you wud have been like '' oh yeah the Ecj r f..king great,they r doing a good job.isn't that what u wud v been saying by now? U MAKE ME LAUGH SOMETIMES U KNOW"
It would be doing its job you prat. It does not have competence to make judgments on this area. How does it make you laugh. I would have been satisfied with the outcome. I also would not have problems if the correct court (in this instances ), The Irish High Court and Irish Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the Immigrant. I can't say you make me laugh. I just feel really sorry for you. The point is that the appropriate jurisdiction for dictating this was the irish courts and irish government. Not the eu. A point that i have been banging on about since this debate started.
