9jeirean wrote:The INIS would do better to remove all this confusions by providing the relevant info for zambrano applications on their website. All they are doing at the moment is digging their heels in the sand. It's no use.
contrary to others, zambrno is a new precedent, and far reaching and is a departure from previous interpretations.
the ecj neglected to review or make comment on some/most of the far reaching opinion of the AG. That caused problems, raises some questions (is it absolute application?) and contradicts chen a little bit.
the state will be looking at how far reaching this judgment is. can the irish (despite cases like Metock regarding legal status) argue that many irish cases are different to zambrano facts eg zambrano family entered beligum on visas and then applied for asylum. in many irish cases, the parents came in without visas or even passports or false passports - ie in legal terms - illegal entry, but could not be refused as they were seeking asylum. - personally, i do not see that argument going anywhere.
zambrano, also says nothing about some cases involving the situation wherer a parent was not really involved in the child's life or due to family problems are not involved in the child's life. how many left ireland? it also says nothing about people who have committed crime.
then there is the issue of "dependency" what does this mean? what happens if the child is indirectly dependent on social welfare? zambrano says nothing on this, it simply says the states must give a work permit/access to employment - what happens if they can't get work? somehow the germans and french won't be happy. zambrano deals with a child born in the member state and there is no reference to reliance on socil welfare and no reference to self sufficiency. does zambrano apply to say a german child (and non eu parents) who wants to live in uk? if zambrano does not apply in this instance then the current position applies?chen applies?. chen demands self sufficiency and no reliance on social - if that was the case, is this not reverse discrimination? if not please explain why it is not (twenty quid for the first person to bawl its not relevant - when it is)
don't dare attack the accuracy or suggest irrelevancy. this is not an opinion, but fact which i am simply explaining to you as to why the state are not doing what you suggest. a preliminary reference on a point of law to the ecj is not digging one's heels in. the state are seeking guidance as this zambrano case is new and future matters are uncertain. moreover, its not as much the state that are suggesting this issues but the courts.
for the cases that are clear (most will fall smack into the facts of zambrano), ye, they should be dealt with quicker- irrespective of legal status.
it would be better for them to study the judgment and then properly and accurately advise people on the website