Minister says law to tackle 'sham marriages' on way

[Southern_Sky]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 92246.html

[Obie]

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

[9jeirean]

To think some people still say that Alan Shatter does not know what he's doing. Another +1 one for the man.

9jeirean

[acme4242]

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.

[walrusgumble]

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

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?

[walrusgumble]

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.

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.

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. A lot of the cases in the High Court involved people who are in breach of immigration rules (ie over stay of visa) or are failed asylum seekers who are deemed safe to be sent home. The courts acknowledge that a state is entitled to maintain the integrity of their immigration system and ensure that marriage is not used as a back door to get status. The European Convention on Human Rights provides that a decision to deport must be proportionate, but in reality, depending on the facts of the case, it is unlikely to beat the State unless an exceptional cases arises.

THe State has states that show trends in the birth and marriages rates and are able to link them with one's nationality and legal status. Until you have access to this data, you should refrain from commenting on what is a false pretext or not.

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. It is not exactly the most severe requirement. Considering that there is a high level of divorce in society, it would be ridiculous to grant citizenship immeditately merely on the fact that one marries. Very few countries carry out such as practice. Anyone who complains about that (ie no automatic citizenship) really has something to hide. Citizenship is granted after one has shown a genuine link/integration into the country. It is not granted on the basis of mere convenience from not having to comply with annoying immigration procedures.

The State like any other state is entitled to have its own rules, and indepnent of Europe where EU has no competence. This is not new. Ireland has to follow similar policies to the UK due to our geographical location and the similar type of migrants that we attract. If Ireland opposed or did not agree with the EU judgments in Metock, McCarthy (see their submissions) Ibrahim, Zambrano etc, its hardly going to decide to take an similar decision to the ECJ on similar immigration policies but are that are not within EU competence, are they?

[Ben]

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.

[Obie]

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?

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.

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%.

[walrusgumble]

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.

Why are you shocked?. Or are you being sarcstic? It is crystal clear from the website.

THe State continously state that an non nationals (who do not derive any rights from EU Law) do not have any automatic rights of residence.

THe website confirms that it is unlikely one will succeed if a deportation order is in place. Provided the Minister considereds the whole circumstances, the ECtHR permit member state to fail to respect a couples choice of martial residence.

The above it was the Irish Stated (unsuccessfully) Metock. As you are aware, they have (probably unsuccessfully) attempted in the Immigration Bill, require prior permission from the Minister of Justice to seek permission to marry. This clearly to deal with those who did not have legal status

[walrusgumble]

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?

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.

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%.

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.

You are going to get very few European Citizens who would not be sceptical of the trends between nationals who have historically not had a common history, culture and language.If it was nationals of Pakistan and Britian that is one thing, or Turkey and Germany, but Lativan and Pakistan? Please.

Although its academic now, a requirement to reside legally in the state or another state, would have sorted out the concern about sham marriages. It would most certaintly reduce the tendancy to marry in the first place. How many are getting married now, knowing that its not enough to be married to an EU person but that EU person must be working?

I think you will find that the figures that you suggest are a bit higher than that. But either way, 15 % is far too high. How many of the 85% involved non eu nationals who had prior legal status before marriage? Not all asylum seekers, for example are Nigerian or nationals of pakistan you know. The 15% refers to an exceedingly high trend in particular groups, which even Alan Shatter has expressed concern over.

The only reason that the flood gates have not occurred is because of the economic climate, very few would succeed in relying on Article 7 of the Directive.

Regarding flood gates on Zambrano, now one suggested that it would occur in the future as most EU states have now amended their citizenship laws. Most effected in Ireland come from births before 2005, and most of those parents got status in Ireland already.

[Obie]

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.

[fatty patty]

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.

fyi

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.

[walrusgumble]

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.

you really are a dumb c&nt .

Please don't accuse me of stupidity when you are too retarded to comprehend what is before you.


You should refrain from making such comments, you clearly are not capable of seeking confirmation to anything that you don't understand, before judging.

It would be rubbish to people who are unable to read.

Read it again, there is nothing factually incorrect with what I stated. I merely stated there was an attempt by the department to do this. I am correct, they did try. But I also stated in brackets, that it was unsuccessful. (it was unsuccessful in the British Courts on basis of Article 12)

I did express my opinion however, that it still should have been allowed. Article 12 is a load of toss in my opinion. ITs a case of making it up as they go along. There is perfectly valid legal argument on for both sides of the argument. An individual's rights should not be more important than that of a country as a whole. How can you claim a right to something in a country when you don't even have a right to be there?. OF course, before you talk before thinking, I had also ackonwledged in my post that that the matter was "academic" and essentially irrelevant.I know there are a few slow ones here, but it was not neccessary to point out why its academic.

You say its nonsense, but have nothing intelligent to say, bar, its against the law. Yes you are correct. But law is not always good law. A majority of citizens would be completely in disagreement with the judgments in light of the reasons for such draconian measures. One is entitled to disagree with the opinions of a court.

It don't make them idiots, provided at least, the person acknowledges that opinion and fact are two different things. You have no valid reason to argue that one is not entitled to disagree with a court, on a political view point.

How does Hitler come into this? He was against nearly everyone? At least people on this side of Europe ignored him, the same can't be said for others. In most cases, only people with little to say always bring Hitler up to some how try and prove a point. But, then, you are one of those self serving types who thinks its dearly beloved to have boarder controls, despite the high likelihood that your own country has them

The Government is bluntly saying, it is fair to say, why are they rushing into marriage?, they barely don't know these people. It is very difficult to accept that it is a mere coincidence that many of the Non EU citizens are either of illegal status or temporary status (stamp 2). Would they rush into marriage if the non eu person's status was safe? Fair point with regard to the difference in values as to the age one marries or time period of the relationship one marries. But there have been far too many reports from the marriage registration union to suggest that everything is not all right. Its no coincidence too that similar trends are happening around Europe. Thus the scepticism. You really think I care what another thinks, its him that is stuck with the view and until nationals of their country change their ways, it will stick

Of course you think Metock was a god send. Many of you would be back home if it was not. I would accept however, that in the event that the third country national was legal eg stamp 2 & 3 to a small extent but certaintly stamp 1 or 4 on their own grounds, it was bonkers to require residence in another state as per old article 3.2 of old regulations. THe state should have dealt with that better. You seem to forget that Akrich might have cause some people problems.

Can't disagree with you on the basis of McDowell being gone from public life

[Obie]

sometimes i gather the more longer you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. easy on the keyboard guv.

I could not agree more.

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.

[Obie]

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 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.

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.

[walrusgumble]

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.

fyi

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.

FYI what?

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.

You are referring, as per those links, to the length of time it takes to get a decision AFTER complying with the residency rules for eligbility.

You seem intelligent enough, so I would doubt that it will take more than 5 minutes for you to figure out that those are two different time scales, and two different issues we are talking about.

There is nothing to what I have suggested that suggests that all you have to do is reside in ireland for 3-5 years, and thus ignoring the lengthy time period (probably about 7-8 years) and you have citizenship. But in the definite event that some genuines will think otherwise, let me confirm, I am speaking about the time period for eligibility to apply for citizenship.


So before commenting on whether someone is digging holes, how about you actually read and attempt to understand what another person is saying.

But 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? Do you object to the fact that it is not automatic, as one poster suggest? If so why do you object? Name 5 major economic EU states that continue with automatic citizenship

[walrusgumble]

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 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.

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.

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.

How does one link the legal immigration status with the nationality/religion of a person.? That is one question that you always avoid answering. In the likely event that you do answer, I really am looking forward to a chuckle.

Having a concern that people are abusing the system, that's dearly beloved? Wonder how would non eu migrants who actually were honest and came here on an honest basis eg work permits, think of those who jumped in without the major financial requirements and got off easily, simply by marry some bint? Answer that

White people also apply for asylum too obie. As do Catholics ? And, surprise surprise, Americans who claim to have some involvement with the War-desertions or some fantatic 9/11 conspiratists.


By the way, its the ECJ who have interpreted in such a manner that was not intended by the Memebr States, Commissioner and all, that is what the problem is

Obie if and only if your intelligence comes back, i won't hold my breath, don't bother replying. If you do, answer whats put before you and try not to change posts. admit you have nothing to come back on it.

Lastly, stop feeling sorry for yourself. You will never be taken seriously . You also better get us of people opposing your senstive feelings as you are nothing special (neither is anyone) And look at your own country and their people before throwing stones.

[Muttsnuts]

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.

[fatty patty]

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.

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.

But 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.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#492675

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?

Do you object to the fact that it is not automatic, as one poster suggest? If so why do you object?

What was wrong with it being auto? No I dont object. But the way it is implemented/shoved forward is i have issues with.

Name 5 major economic EU states that continue with automatic citizenship

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.

http://livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how ... alization/

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=80

[acme4242]

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.

yes, perhaps wise words of caution here. need to see the bill first.

we have to see if the bill protects rights, fundamental the right
of marriage and the family without restrictive requirements.

[walrusgumble]

sometimes i gather the more longer you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. easy on the keyboard guv.

I could not agree more.

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.

When your are dealing with people like you who have a false sense of entitlement, you need to be put in your place.

Case you have not forgotten, most to the cases you are talking about, involve internal matters and had nothing to do with EU law, which are not within the scope of EU law. These decisions, on a consistent basis have been applied, explained and accpeted by the Irish Courts. In case it has been lost on you, the decisions of the Minister have been implicitly accepted by the Irish people in a referendum, which sought to change the rules on citizenship in order to prevent future attempts to get residency via the back door. There was legitimacy, which was ignored by the ECJ in Zambrano, on dodgy wishy washy grounds. why adopt a purely internal matter with adults in McCarthy, yet ignore it when dealing with a child in Zambrano? - They can't even agree with each other, thats some confidence boost. In dealing with Irish citizens and marriage, McCarthy approves of their appprove. THis is of course, all academic now.

The matters that were struck down by EU law only came after a period of inconsistencies between previous ECJ cases (eg Akrich vs Jia vs Metock) and therefore had legal standing on EU law and could not be said to be going over their heads, only for the ECJ to ignore their own caselaw and make up decisions as they went along, as seen in Zambrano. THe Metock process came about as Ireland implemented in that old Regulation 3.2 what Metock actually said, which was arguable distinguishable to Jia as it involved different legal status of tcn. Again, all of this is academic.The way the ECJ is going, it is impossible to determine, at times, what they will think is compatible with EU law.

It would be worth also remembering that the political classes in Europe, such as various important member states and even the EU Commission, have shared similar views as Ireland.

When you are referring to the mess of the department, please stop spoutting rubbish that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. The mess is due solely to the lack of resources and staff in dealing with the huge backlogs in applications for leave to remain/subsidiary protection (which takes serious amount of time to reasearch and review, maybe if the ones who stand no chance of success due to the safety of their country or complete lack of creditibilty realised this and left instead, there would not be so many applicantions pending), long term residency, citizenship (something like 22,000 applicants pending - which even shatter agrees is ridiculous that such an amount would be applying), eu treaty rights. And this is only the INIS, the department of justice consists of further departments.

In case the tiny mind has not noticed, due to economic constraints we have a monitorium on the employment of staff. THe same Minister has being forced to cease seeking applicants for the Gardaí for the next 2 years. We can't employ further nurses etc.

Again, in case you have not noticed, the Minister implements the policy of the government. The government has just as much dealings with policy or lack of, than the Minister. THe government make the rules not department staff or civil servants.

Mickey mouse could have come into the department at the time shatter did, they would have still have to done the same thing as SHatter as they were FORCED to do so by the ECJ. Again, its far to early to be parading for Shatter. Lets see what happens first.

Again you could not agree more with another poster. Its a shame that other poster misrepresented, whether intentionally or by accident, what was actually said

[walrusgumble]

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.

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.

But 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.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ht=#492675

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?

Do you object to the fact that it is not automatic, as one poster suggest? If so why do you object?

What was wrong with it being auto? No I dont object. But the way it is implemented/shoved forward is i have issues with.

Name 5 major economic EU states that continue with automatic citizenship

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.

http://livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how ... alization/

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=80

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.

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).

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.


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.

"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.


"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.

[fatty patty]

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.

Hence the point of doing a stress test on the marriage and increase the time frame rather than shooting completely. What good will that acheive by taking automatic entitlement away, if state motivation is that the person going to get Irish nationality and becomes burden on state by means of SW, then at present there is alot of people who are in safe sound marriages and doing it already, that doesn't mean that they are going to be kicked out of the state the next day, spousal visas keep getting extended until the expiry of their passports. Atleast by issuing passport and the trend is person will be inclined to move on elsewhere in EU and apply their trade.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Impecable conduct ... aboslutely. not being burden on state when case is pending ... absolutely. heck the state can add in if you become burden on state a year after receiving naturalisation it will be cancelled. grounds for eligibility is for all to see but the way this decision making works is a secret making hearsay rife. the state can encourage cream to come here and grant them quickie citizenship but what state should not do and apart from ireland other states dont do is stone wall applicants with "lesser" jobs to their liking. no matter how coldly you look at it that practice is wrong. there is a timeframe to deal with application it should be turned around in that timeframe. no ifs and buts, simple!

"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.

oh i have copped on to that fact sunshine. but unfortunatley it is a fashion statement like it or lump it. a certain person's app can be turned around yet another one waits longer to be told not enough resources. me backside!

"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.

legislation was hurried through and petty excuses to justify and yet public servant's spouses get it in auto form.

ps: thanks to Minister shatter transparency is on the way

http://inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000088