- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
You are going to have to provide a link to my post or quote me because the first line, I do not know what you are talking about, Romanians? If so, seriously fucj off and read something that matches your intel. I referred to illegal foreigners? In what context? When did you refer to Irish Americans? Provide a link. Clarify what you are trying to say.Morrisj wrote:u said ur reference was d illegal foreigners and i pointed out what about d illegal Irish in America,u said its a different issue,why?cos they r related?lol EU~USA.was that the reason Mcdowell or was it Dermot?solicited 4 status from d Presi. of America 2 be given to illegal Irish in America even Shatter used this against Dermot's Immig/Bill yet u said d bill was fair and i asked u-r u indirectly saying shatter doesnt know what he is doing,u said nothing.r u pissed off cos u r bn challenged by a dentist?
Morrisj wrote:never mentioned Nationality,i said foreigners either muslims from palestine or Nigerians.I also asked u regarding those people u helped,what were d serious serious evidence and financial blablabla u used?u said at 1st u help 3 but later u said Tds helped d other,looking at d case of Ugbo or Ugbolease ur story on how u helped those people is not true,if its true then il call that "Partial processing of applications" Dude stop ur lawyer wannbe cos u il end up in the street arguing like a lady .Best of luck
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=60walrusgumble wrote:Morrisj wrote:walrusgumble
What has the Irish in America got to do with it? What does it achieve? I for one am against tbreaking laws. What America does is there business (I keep asking about your country because i would be certain enough, that like Ireland, your people are not in a position to pontificate) Lets actually ask the more important question: THere is a major difference with illegal irish in the US and other illegal nationalities such as Mexicans in the eyes of the US. There is also a major difference between Irish illegals in the US and illegal non Irish in Ireland. Why there is such a public acceptance / happiness of politicians to assist the illegal irish cause in the American Political Houses? It can't be because many US politicans are half Irish,. It cant't be the old predictable skin colour shi*.
i am well aware what shatter says.he is consistent.is it what his colleges in fg think?do a majority of the irish population agree?i accept he is genuine.but what is said in opposition & government are two different things.we are already seeing u turns in the government.that bill wont see the light of day for another 2 years. shatter might be gone by then.its too early to judge him. sure even rock star obama has not lived up to his promises.what madness? i need no curing nor should a country bend down to a minority.Morrisj wrote:http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?i ... 0-06.241.0
I strongly recommend that link for you to read Mr Walsg. (conversation between Dermot and Shatter regarding Immigration/Residence Bill)
Sorry dude just want your madness to get cured b4 getting worse
Can you please clarify if you mean there should be no such thing as Justice and Equality ?walrusgumble wrote:i am well aware what shatter says.he is consistent.is it what his colleges in fg think?do a majority of the irish population agree?i accept he is genuine.but what is said in opposition & government are two different things.we are already seeing u turns in the government.that bill wont see the light of day for another 2 years. shatter might be gone by then.its too early to judge him. sure even rock star obama has not lived up to his promises.what madness? i need no curing nor should a country bend down to a minority.
acme, regarding shatter, its too early to comment on shatter.due to economic problems and public attitude with immigration,non eu,he might have no choice but to continue the policies of ff.acme4242 wrote:Can you please clarify if you mean there should be no such thing as Justice and Equality ?walrusgumble wrote:i am well aware what shatter says.he is consistent.is it what his colleges in fg think?do a majority of the irish population agree?i accept he is genuine.but what is said in opposition & government are two different things.we are already seeing u turns in the government.that bill wont see the light of day for another 2 years. shatter might be gone by then.its too early to judge him. sure even rock star obama has not lived up to his promises.what madness? i need no curing nor should a country bend down to a minority.
You seem to suggest a country should not bend down to a minority of its
own citizens to remove unjust discrimination, in such cases that they have
non-EU family.
creating 2nd class Irish Citizenship is not acceptable.walrusgumble wrote:acme,justice:should people who infringe immigration rules or find loopholes should be rewarded?should we have tolerated the cheapening of our citizenship with people who didn't even have 1 year residence before birth.equality: should people who are on work permits should be treated less favourably because they came legally but have no kids? justice n equality is applied on basis of majority rule.let them get status first then have family, and not hide behind a family law provision,that is not there.
Because it's unfair for other immigrants having to witness such stupidity from you. It is getting me and you know where and its going off topic. By all means please do feck off and jump a cliff. You are demented if you honestly think that i would respond to any of your pm's.Morrisj wrote:pm you?for what?to get more shit from u?nah my inbox cnt take ur shit.I read ur post as of today this afternoon but looking at it again,i saw a new edition of some strange words i didn see there b4,its like something created anger in u and son do u want to know what that something is?Its called PRIDE,get rid of it son.U finally admitted Shatter is genuine,genuine man ammending a bill introduced by d opposite(fake including u)How is that?Illegal Irish or illegal non eu Illegal is Illegal.pm you?hahahahahah
that was because a majority of our supreme court in 2003(and previosly in the 1980's involving chinese nationals) viewed the situation occuring as an attack on bunreacht na heireann.article 41 didn't work for irish families before (ie not absolute) why would it for them?i am sure your familar with judge hardiman's sentiments.the majority people (who voted n our 2 main parties) changed article 9,in 2004, to stop this happening again and allow for new restrictions on citizenship in the future.some coincidence our airports n maternity wards got a fraction bit quieter.yes its great that eu interfere in an area it has no legal right for and ignore the previous democratic wishes and acceptance of the people of one country.ImmigrationLawyer wrote:I agree. It is just sad that our beloved Bunreacht na hÉireann was not used to vindicate the rights of it's citizens, but a foreign instrument.Obie wrote:Thanks to Zambrano, the notion of 2Class Irish citizen will cease to exist.
zambrano prevents removal of a child because neither parent can stay.it never said a right to both parents.if one parent can stay there's nothing preventing child from staying.most parents got status by 2008.those who didnt,there's a legtimate question of why one parent was still not legal n whether they were that bothered when the child was born.most of the cases that came before the court inolved fathers who came over after 2005.the child being at least 1 years oldMorrisj wrote:Zambrano is clear apart from genuine clarification like if the right of d non eu parents will cease when d Irish minor is over 18. Clarification like what Muttsnut said..1 parent having status and d other parent not having...thats not a reasonable clarification cos d situation of one parent not having status and d other having status resulted mainly 4rm Dermot's bill and what was Zambrano Ruling?Preclude national measures.Dermot's bill was domestic
am posting this as info dnt need any un-invited argument
walrusgumble wrote:zambrano prevents removal of a child because neither parent can stay.it never said a right to both parents.if one parent can stay there's nothing preventing child from staying.most parents got status by 2008.those who didnt,there's a legtimate question of why one parent was still not legal n whether they were that bothered when the child was born.most of the cases that came before the court inolved fathers who came over after 2005.the child being at least 1 years oldMorrisj wrote:Zambrano is clear apart from genuine clarification like if the right of d non eu parents will cease when d Irish minor is over 18. Clarification like what Muttsnut said..1 parent having status and d other parent not having...thats not a reasonable clarification cos d situation of one parent not having status and d other having status resulted mainly 4rm Dermot's bill and what was Zambrano Ruling?Preclude national measures.Dermot's bill was domestic
am posting this as info dnt need any un-invited argument
leonex4t5 wrote:walrusgumble wrote:zambrano prevents removal of a child because neither parent can stay.it never said a right to both parents.if one parent can stay there's nothing preventing child from staying.most parents got status by 2008.those who didnt,there's a legtimate question of why one parent was still not legal n whether they were that bothered when the child was born.most of the cases that came before the court inolved fathers who came over after 2005.the child being at least 1 years oldMorrisj wrote:Zambrano is clear apart from genuine clarification like if the right of d non eu parents will cease when d Irish minor is over 18. Clarification like what Muttsnut said..1 parent having status and d other parent not having...thats not a reasonable clarification cos d situation of one parent not having status and d other having status resulted mainly 4rm Dermot's bill and what was Zambrano Ruling?Preclude national measures.Dermot's bill was domestic
am posting this as info dnt need any un-invited argument
walrusgumble, i disagree with you on that one. zambrano prevents member state from any decision that will will deprive EU minors of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attached to the status of European union citizen. also if the non eu parent and the eu parent live together as a family, then zambrano strenghtens family life in the sense that a decision to remove the non eu parent will effectively force the EU spouse and their EU MINOR CHILD to move. otherwise the member of sate will not be in accordance with the article 8 rights guaranteed under ECHR.
Also there are so many cases like where the EU parent is on drugs? prison? not capable of taking parental responsibility, also where the EU parent cease from looking after the child.
For example, although i have a very good chance of getting a leave to remain on exceptional grounds, my situation makes zambrano stronger.
im from non EU country, my wife and my daughter are both british, i wife is disabled and cant physically do much, my bath my daughter, feed my daughter, make dinner, basically i am my partners carer. and the one responsible for our daughter. so right now if i decide to put to the member of state that i have a british child and my removal will force my daughter and wife to move with me. Question for you Walrusgumble? acting in accordance to the EU law and ECHR Law, what will be the decision.
so what i am trying to point out is, the only way zambrano will not apply to a non eu parent, is if there is no durable relationship between them and the child. because the eu partner can decide to make a presentation that she cease to care for the child because of psychological issues.
because i know many EU parent that are in good relationship with the non eu parent of their child can saying anything to keep the contact between their child and their non eu parent.
I have not. your comments regarding echr and article 8 is a clear indication of your lack of knowledge of the area you purport to speak about.leonex4t5 wrote:walrusgumble.
you have completely gone of my point and question, not in a rude way but i ll clarify my points and question.
Firstly i do not live in ireland. i live in uk, with my wife and my child all british, so chen don't apply.
Secondly, i was not refused a refuge status, i did say my application is PENDING(in process) application only 2weeks old.
Thirdly “Also there are so many cases like where the EU parent is on drugs? prison? not capable of taking parental responsibility, also where the EU parent cease from looking after the child". you answered a completely different thing. if an EU PARENT go to prison or anyone of the above, how does that reduces the rights of the non eu parents and thier minor kids? obviously when the EU is out of the picture due to the above reasons and the non eu parent is fully responsible for the child, then zambrano apply.
and Lastly i lived in my country of origin for 18years it is the safest place for ME to live in. the exceptional case refered is that my wife has severe disability, and the provision made by UK would make family life enjoyable for her than in my country of origin. therefore it is not in my daughters best interest to accompany e away from the uk, and my partner would be deprived og geniue enjoyments gained from being a bruitish citizen if she moves with me. I am her primary carer, and i look after my daughter. thats my exceptional circumstance.
Without Zambrano, i got a fantastic chance of gaining leave to remain. With Zambrano, An automatic chance.
To conclude this, the main reason i disagreed with you in the first place, was you state of if one parent is an EU and the other is non EU, zambrano won't apply. i disagreed with that and gave you reasons why it will apply, and also would it be reasonable to slit the family? NO, but ofcos article 8(2) gives the member state something to hold,(national security,public policy, economic well-being of the country).
having said that the judgement of ZH(tanzania) finds that no individual one of the permissable aims by a member of state should overwiegh the BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD. CHILD'S BEST INTEREST is the primary considiration, Although it can be overwiegh by a combination of many permissible aim listed in article 8(2).
i have read many of your arguements with others, and although i always saw you point, but you mix up the law and your feeling of how things should be. Read obout the ZH(tanzania) and yu would see that Laws guides everyone even criminals. personally i love justise and hate to see a criminal win, but in reality we have to embrace the law. Remember before recent judgements, We all accepted the laws, We all have to accept it right now aswell.