leonex4t5 wrote:i actually thought my previous post would have been the llast, because i have been following your rage with morrisj and co, i actually thought they were the ones not giving you a chance, but clearly, i know what the problem is. you are suffering from obssesion of law, and you are acyually getting blinded by it, i was going to go deep on you now but i got a drink up in a minute. my point still remains about your comment of:
"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."
is totally rubbish and unreasonable. so i suggest you either ignore me, or go read relevant case laws.
I have nothing to say? Clearly? If you want me to embarass you and show you up for the spoofer that you are, then my all means proceed. It aint my time your wasting.
If on the other hand you want to know or learn something, then
go and google the websites of case law of ecthr and do what those other two posters are never capable of doing: knowing what they are talking about. all you are doing to stepping up to get stampped down, it is not worth it. if you have something accurate to suggest, i will be happy to discuss it.
people who are incapable of doing that should never be taken seriously and their views are negligable. they twist things and become dishonest to suit their own means (until its rebutted)
in case that you missed the point. immigration is law. the laws are what dictates who has rights and who does not. if you cite law then you are expected to discuss in detail and not wishy washy ideal that get you no where, or at least don't pretend to be an expert. that is fair point.
blinded by it? I do see what you are getting at but good luck when you are trying to say that to a judge. Its for the citizens of Ireland and not you. With regard to EU law, people like my self have come over here and shared their knowledge on EU law, only to be murdered because the facts don't suit your agenda. That really does not bother me, what really bothers me is a couple of lads just off the boat dare lecture me on the fundamental basic of EU law. ie when the Treaty does not provide what to do, its an internal matter, subject to the discretion of the member state, pursuant to their obligation under ECHR. Even a cursory glance on well respected EU law expers would indicate that the words "contraversial", "interesting" and "novel" have been used, to suggest that it is a new case and move from previous precedent. Heaven forbid someone mentions it, or some poor desepate sob will think somehow the Minister or ECJ will change its mind.
You don't expect sympathy coming from any country to people who come from safe countries and claim that they are being persecuted, despite COI suggesting the contrary (not all asylum seekers are bogus!) , nor do you expect sympathy to those who came simply to avail of residence via the back door.
People are quick to condone illegal immigrants and sham marriages, yet, never hear anyone complain about hearing stories about their own fellow country person telling a few tall tales about their country. I have heard a few Nigerians telling me its no where near as bad as some make out (lets not kid ourselves, some places are dangerous - delta)
But its the same in your own country.
why is it total rubbish and unreasonable. It may have been unreasonable for some parents not to have come to the compnany and mother and child in ireland when the child was born. it should be case by case basis as not all cases are the same, but where it merits, fine. ECtHR has clearly allowed for it (in ADULT CASES)
if you are going to go deep, I welcome it, but I am ignoring it, if you don't provide the cases, or straight forward opinion.
there are no relevant cases on this very very issue. This is why, the Irish courts wanted to send a few to europe in the first place, even if ECJ slaps it down, so be it, its then confirmed. but sadly other people have hidden agendas and demand it does not go.
Go and read relevant case law, that is very very rich