- 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
And why do you not think its not as bad? You have some from of knowledge or expertises? Know every migrant couple? What is your basis of your belief, since you seem to know better than the Department of Justice and / or Registration of Marriage Unit?Obie wrote:This is what a minister that believes in fairness does. He does not simply withdraw the right of all couple in the name of marriage of convenience. I don't believe the scale of the problems as indicated by the figures,are as high and alarming as the officials are claiming
In most cases, spouses of Irish Nationals will get immgration status, provided that their legal status before the marriage is not illegal and there is no deportation order in place at the time of marriage. So I don't know what you are raving about.acme4242 wrote:welcome to this long overdue action but the DOJ,
If FF had not been kicked out on their backside, We would have Ahern,
making more draconian law, while maintaining the excuse it was
to combat fraud marriage, while at no time making fraud marriage a crime of fraud. in other words keeping the excuse open.
But now the thing is, will they re-instate the proper rights
of genuine married families taken away by messrs O'Donoghue,
McDowell and Ahern, under the false misleading excuse it was to combat said sham marriages
We are talking about
1) Post-Nuptial Citizenship,
2) Removal of alien registration for Irish Family in Ireland
3) Automatic equal rights for Irish Families compared to other EU families
when citizens rights are taken away, even under false pretext, its going
to be very hard to get them back.
But at least, the false excuse cannot be used again.
I against any form of wrong doing period. However i find little reason to justify a measure that affect genuine couple, who are simply availing themselves of the rights accorded to them under the Treaty establishing the EUROPEAN UNION.walrusgumble wrote:
And why do you not think its not as bad? You have some from of knowledge or expertises? Know every migrant couple? What is your basis of your belief, since you seem to know better than the Department of Justice and / or Registration of Marriage Unit?
Why are you shocked?. Or are you being sarcstic? It is crystal clear from the website.Ben wrote:walrusgumble wrote:The State's attitude is, If you don't have status in Ireland at time of marriage, you have no right to get married in the first place.
It is not an issue of whether the marriage is genuine or not, it is a question of preventing marriages being used as a back door into Europe. Anyone could get married, they may even love each other. There is a preference that the non eu national had permission to remain in the country in the first place.Obie wrote:I against any form of wrong doing period. However i find little reason to justify a measure that affect genuine couple, who are simply availing themselves of the rights accorded to them under the Treaty establishing the EUROPEAN UNION.walrusgumble wrote:
And why do you not think its not as bad? You have some from of knowledge or expertises? Know every migrant couple? What is your basis of your belief, since you seem to know better than the Department of Justice and / or Registration of Marriage Unit?
If the department receives just under 2000 application for residency on the basic of EU law or treaty rights, and just under about 300 of those applications involves marriages to Pakistani, Nigerian, and people from the Indian subcontinent to Eastern European, then assuming all those applications are bogus, as you would compel you narrow mind to think, they make up about 15% of total applicants. In actual fact, 85% seems genuine in the mind of the department, or at least they are not complaining about them, as there is no valid reason for doing so, besides the floodgate argument which has be outrightly rejected in Metock and Zambrano.
In order to stop those so called 15%, is it proportionate to imposed draconian measure which profoundly affect 85% of claimant who have made a valid claim.
I know, and every fair minded person, knows that they problem is not with the 15% but mostly with the 85% . The 15% is a convenient way of punishing the 85%.
fyiwalrusgumble wrote:It is not a serious requirement to expect a spouse of an irish citizen be be married and live with the Irish spouse for a small period (3 poxy) years in Ireland.
Obie wrote:It get to a point, were supposedly intelligent people start sprouting utter rubbish, and it appears you have reached that point Walrusgrumble.
The right to get married and to create/found a family is protected by Article 9 of the EU charter of Fundamental rights, and i think Article 12 of ECHR.
Now you are suggesting Ireland change that rule, and restrict the right to legal resident only. This will in turn affect the right of Irish Citizens to get married to the partner of their choosing.
Thank goodness you are not a Prime Minister. Your ideas seems like Hitler, who has no rerspect or regards for the rule of law.
Contrary to your views, I believe the recent generation of Eastern European are more open to relationship with South Asian and Black, than the old Soviet Union generation. That does not mean i am saying all the relationships are genuine, but your basis and that of the previous government's for saying these relationships are not genuine is wrong.
I see in Universities and Colleges, Eastern European forming relationship with Resident Asian and Blacks who are citizens of these nations.
One of my relatives is in a relationship with a Polish, and he will find your comments and stereotypical views laughable, if it was not so pathetic.
I believe Metock was a God sent. Pre-Metock law was completely ineffective, as people in Ireland could go to Northern Ireland, Danes could go to Sweden and apply for residency and then come to Ireland or Denmark and reapply, and they would have meet the restrictive requirements, pre- Metock. It only puts a stumbling block on genuine family.
I thank the Almight every day that the gabbage of Regulation 3(2) is death and burried with its implementer.
I could not agree more.fatty patty wrote:
sometimes i gather the more longer you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. easy on the keyboard guv.
I knew i would get it out of you eventually. I was always of the understanding where you are concern, that the fact that a marriage is genuine is not of major concern to you, but rather the ethnic background of the people contracting these , supposedly, in your view tabboo marriges, this fear of a possible threat of infestation of the Irish Gene pool, this uneasiness of having someone different in ones midst, this anger at these ladies falling in love with the 3rd world people.walrusgumble wrote:
It is not an issue of whether the marriage is genuine or not, it is a question of preventing marriages being used as a back door into Europe. Anyone could get married, they may even love each other .
FYI what?fatty patty wrote:fyiwalrusgumble wrote:It is not a serious requirement to expect a spouse of an irish citizen be be married and live with the Irish spouse for a small period (3 poxy) years in Ireland.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=25809
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=79433
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#492675
sometimes i gather the more longer you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. easy on the keyboard guv.
Yes you really are a joke. You really are a stupid person. You must be really self loathing as you are self serving. Whatever chip on your shoulder, leave it a side when you are on here.Obie wrote:I knew i would get it out of you eventually. I was always of the understanding where you are concern, that the fact that a marriage is genuine is not of major concern to you, but rather the ethnic background of the people contracting these , supposedly, in your view tabboo marriges, this fear of a possible threat of infestation of the Irish Gene pool, this uneasiness of having someone different in ones midst, this anger at these ladies falling in love with the 3rd world people.walrusgumble wrote:
It is not an issue of whether the marriage is genuine or not, it is a question of preventing marriages being used as a back door into Europe. Anyone could get married, they may even love each other .
I noted your concerns a very long time ago, this is just the smoking gun for those who might be in between.
The law says if a a Union citizen is in a genuine relationship with a non-EEA national, provided that citizen is exercising treaty rights, that national has a right to stay in that state. I see no flaw in that. It was not the European courts of justice that made the law, it was the member state. The court is only their to interprete the law, and answer questions on it when required to.
At least with Irish Tom we knew where we stand. He was man enough to express his sickening view in a transparent manner, regardless / inspiteof the abhorrent nature of it.
I agree with that poster he was in a sense right that how under a different cloak it is removed. the fascade the previous govt has used to implement it. if you rightly remember it was a 3 year residency rule on post nuptual citizenships. if the then minister was so worried about abuse then why not increase the time from 3 to 5 years? do a stress test on the relationship there then everything would've been black and white for minister's liking.walrusgumble wrote:
I am referring to the time period BEFORE you are entitled to apply.The above poster is complaining that the removal of previous automatic right to citizenship upon marriage. I argue that it is correct thing to do and we are not the only country to do it.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#492675But to answer you, there will be very very very few people in Ireland that will be too concerned about these delays. They , including me, will sympathise, but they won't tolerate additional public funds to be spent in processing applications for some people (not all),who are only using Irish citizenship as a means of immigration convenience.
Now for you to answer, taking the serious delays to one side, what part of the requirement to have actually lived in ireland with spouse (ie have a genuine link to the country than just a marriage) before being eligble for citizenship do you object to?
What was wrong with it being auto? No I dont object. But the way it is implemented/shoved forward is i have issues with.Do you object to the fact that it is not automatic, as one poster suggest? If so why do you object?
Don't know exactly but think spain is one and ireland is definitely not but anyway info for all EU states and their citizenship laws and timescale criterias are available here.Name 5 major economic EU states that continue with automatic citizenship
yes, perhaps wise words of caution here. need to see the bill first.Muttsnuts wrote:In relation to the original post, it appears that everybody has been quick to congratulate Mr Shatter for moving to resolve the situation. He was forced to do so on account of an individual taking proceedings over Garda policy of preventing marriages from occurring. It was often the case that Garda would turn up at a wedding ceremony and arrest the bride and groom!
I'm in agreement that the State has to have some form of legislative power to deal with sham marriages but we don't know what form that will take. All we know is what is contained inthe Irish Times article which says that he intends to publish a bill soon and that it will be incorporated into the Immigration and Protection Bill, which has been in limbo for years at this point.
I'd like to see the form of the legislative measure before congratulating the DoJ. They could very well place very restrictive requirements on intending marriages and attempt to justify it via the public policy derogation. The EU has no say in relation to requiremnets to have a valid marriage in a State as far as I'm aware.
When your are dealing with people like you who have a false sense of entitlement, you need to be put in your place.Obie wrote:I could not agree more.fatty patty wrote:
sometimes i gather the more longer you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. easy on the keyboard guv.
He also gets angry, looses his temper and start using obscene languages.
I am not surprised that he was working at the department of Justice.
No wonder the department was an utter shamble and mess, before Mr Shatters came along.
People in that department, like Walrusgrumble, feel they are above the Law, and their views surpasses the highest judicial authorities in the European Union.
The change in the post nuptials is not completley based on this idea of sham marriages. The purpose of the liberal rules years ago was in recongnition of Ireland's own immigration history. It wanted to entice people to have a connection with the State and encourage people to come to Ireland. Attitudes have substantially changed over the decade. An unprecedented trend of immigration occurred in Ireland. There was no longer a need to give to have such citizenship rules, as Ireland now had an economy to intice movement into the state. As time went by, more people of vast nationalities married Irish people. More applications were sent in. A long term residency policy was set up in order to reduce the need to apply for citizenship.fatty patty wrote:I agree with that poster he was in a sense right that how under a different cloak it is removed. the fascade the previous govt has used to implement it. if you rightly remember it was a 3 year residency rule on post nuptual citizenships. if the then minister was so worried about abuse then why not increase the time from 3 to 5 years? do a stress test on the relationship there then everything would've been black and white for minister's liking.walrusgumble wrote:
I am referring to the time period BEFORE you are entitled to apply.The above poster is complaining that the removal of previous automatic right to citizenship upon marriage. I argue that it is correct thing to do and we are not the only country to do it.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#492675But to answer you, there will be very very very few people in Ireland that will be too concerned about these delays. They , including me, will sympathise, but they won't tolerate additional public funds to be spent in processing applications for some people (not all),who are only using Irish citizenship as a means of immigration convenience.
so these posters are only using the citizenship as a means of convenience? i thought getting the visa was the part of convenience exercise and not the citizenship itself. At present and it is all too clear although not official , that this state is using convenience itself. cherry picking individuals for citizenship gains (IT professionals, financier earning certain amount etc etc) sound all to fimiliar around these boards. talk about fairness and equality too often how about fairness and equality for a cabbie immigrant and a medical consultant/google immigrant altogether all equals should be based on when applied. as far as the additional public funding is concerned that is just a pity excuse in the public sector, its like a fashion statement just like the word "recession" nowadays. it is detailed/documented on this thread here regarding the staffing levels, comparison with like for like on other states etc.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=80
Now for you to answer, taking the serious delays to one side, what part of the requirement to have actually lived in ireland with spouse (ie have a genuine link to the country than just a marriage) before being eligble for citizenship do you object to?
I dont. Where did i implied that i do?
What was wrong with it being auto? No I dont object. But the way it is implemented/shoved forward is i have issues with.Do you object to the fact that it is not automatic, as one poster suggest? If so why do you object?
Don't know exactly but think spain is one and ireland is definitely not but anyway info for all EU states and their citizenship laws and timescale criterias are available here.Name 5 major economic EU states that continue with automatic citizenship
http://livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how ... alization/
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=80
walrusgumble wrote:
The change in the post nuptials is not completley based on this idea of sham marriages. The purpose of the liberal rules years ago was in recongnition of Ireland's own immigration history. It wanted to entice people to have a connection with the State and encourage people to come to Ireland. Attitudes have substantially changed over the decade. An unprecedented trend of immigration occurred in Ireland. There was no longer a need to give to have such citizenship rules, as Ireland now had an economy to intice movement into the state. As time went by, more people of vast nationalities married Irish people. More applications were sent in. A long term residency policy was set up in order to reduce the need to apply for citizenship.
With the trend of marriages not lasting long, there was also a risk that people would get citizenship (automatically on marriage ) and be separated within a space of 1 - 2years, even with marriage being completely genuine.
This is not sensible but a stereotypical image/cage and jaded mentality. Zambrano/spouse of Irish/spouse of EU/EU1/EU2 apps all these individuals are going to get long term visas and like it or lump it if decides to claim of the state the state can do jack sh*t to remove them, so this argument that granting citizenship will make it more difficult to remove them is outdated. Ones who are going to claim are claiming now and will claim even if granted citizenship. But atleast if granted citizenship this will open different opportunities for them in different places, IMHO they will move on to different jurisdictions. No one likes to stay on a certain amount of dole (very few who do) and classed as a sponger.walrusgumble wrote:
The granting of citizenship is a serious matter. It has serious consquences. It prevents states from removing a person. They are also fully required to provide social welfare services and others, almost as of right. Whereareas, immigrants are expected to be self reliant (well, eu workers are entitled to the same conditions as Irish people in social benefits) Irish Citizens have more rights and entitlements than say a third country national (who has no connection with EU law) THe idea is to control the system to a managable number, as per the financial capability of the state. This is only sensible. It should also be entitled to determine the type of people who are suited, not just any clown who has 5 years residence. (ie, a person who has genuinely integrated, was self sufficient and never involved in crime or suspected of same).
This is why the state needs a proper citizenship testing system like their is in other states. english tests, state knowledge, irish history etc. But like the natives thsoe who have connection with the state would comeback and come back strong with overseas experience. why did those doctors left? did the minister ever tried to find that out, i know a doctor friend from laois left ireland in 2000 (naturalised irish) moved to UK worked for NHS and came back and working here as a consultant, alot of juniors are benefiting from his experience. Why is this a biggie that a naturalised irish move abroad and yet native can, so this means even after becoming irish there is two classes of citizenry.walrusgumble wrote:
Some posters are using citizenship as an immigration convenience, yes. It is based on ensuring security, entitlement to reside in other EU states and the being required to go to the GNIB and get visas. I am personally aware of 4 Chinese nationals who ridiculously got citizenship even though their english is brutal , that, or they pretend not to know anything when they are asked something that does not suit them. THe case of Kishra 1994 (a case where a doctor was unfairly refused citizenship because of the actions of other doctors from the same country of birth) showed the concern of the then minister had where substantial information was collected that naturalised doctors had left the state for good, almost immediately after getting citizenship and went elsewhere in Europe.
walrusgumble wrote:
Why is it cherry picking. Sorry but its entitled too. Ireland wants only the best skilled, educated and hard working people. Its no different to other countries. Ireland has more than enough of their own people who can fill up low paid low skilled work. It wants to make sure that these people will inlikely require state social assistance. THe minister is suppose to look into the future. That why we have such detailed census. It also demands that immigrants who come here are of impecable conduct. So what? Ireland is no different to other countries. You seem to have a native attitude as to the purpose of work permit and entitlements. The grounds for eligibility are clearly provided for all to see, so it aint a secret. The individual, due to the decent standard of living and wages, and rights of eu citizenship is the bigger winner here.
walrusgumble wrote:
"just a pity excuse in the public sector, its like a fashion statement just like the word "recession" nowadays. it is detailed/documented on this thread here regarding the staffing levels, comparison with like for like on other states etc."
It is not a fashion statement, it is a reality. THe sooner you cop onto to that the better.
walrusgumble wrote:
"What was wrong with it being auto? No I dont object. But the way it is implemented/shoved forward is i have issues with. "
I was not impling, but i did ask the question in order to confirm what i believed you might mean. You answered.Thank you. Others to do the same before making statements on the interpretation of what some one says. What do you mean "by the way it is implemented / shoved forward". ? It was implemented by legislation.