as usual you have nothing to say about the substantive argument put to you.Morrisj wrote:@Wals,According to Danish stance on zambrano?Would u like to be deprived of ur right to have your family members especially now when non eea are availing of such right through their minor Irish born kids as well as the Automatic right of other Eu citizens in Ireland?Please i kindly advise u not answer this,cos if u do,everybody will know d real dark part of u.If u say yeah,means u r a retard.u r only saying yes cos u dnt ve a non eu family member and u dnt wish to have one as a family member.If u say no
first of law, i am a law abidding irish citizen. secondly, immigration law has been abused throughout europe.
morris, legal rights come to those who are legal resident and keep within the immigration laws (putting metock aside for one second)
national governments, where eu law does not apply, eg domestic immigration laws that do not involve its citizens exercising eu rights no matter how liberal like carpetner is a matter for that country. no member state would have agreed to confer competence to the eu if it meant that the eu could without a legal basis (bar the new found discovery of the citizenship term) interfere. if people want to change the laws, it should be at the doors of domestic government houses. i would not be nose out of joint if shatter brings in domestic laws to help you in that situation - it is democratic and irish people get a say.
you do not understand , clearly, that soverignty is important. yes, we have freely given soverignty to europe in other areas and if europe rules a certain way, within the confines of the treaty and provides consistent explanation, well then ok, we deal with that consequence. but member states can not tolerate the situation where the person fails to actually exercise the fundamental freedom - the right to move to another eu state. if ireland is so against cases like metock and zambrano, it makes no sense to endorse them when they don't have to when eu law is not applicable.
we are told that citizenship under article 20 is complentary. that means, in the traditional point of view, that due to this citizenship you have a right to enter another eu state. the directive 2004 / 38 ec spells out citizenship's right of residence. that directive's legal basis comes from articles such as 21 and 46 tfeu. no where does it say that the law applies where one has never lived outside one's state.
i understand from cases like carpetener,singh and eind (the last two cases to the ecj's credit at least was explained very well and did make sense) that the court looks at the future and talk about potential obstacles. that is nonsense at times especially when there is little evidence that a person would have gone to another eu state, eg shirely mccarthy who was on welfare.
people who come into this country or any country for a specific purpose such as study or asylum seeking know that their status is limited. they should not be expected to be allowed to cover behind a newly discovered family to prevent their legal endorsed deportation order when they failed to renew that status or failed all forms of asylum protection.
the figures are far too convenient in the last decade that many were merely here to work. (at least be honest) why did new rules on students come in, despite the genuine economic advantages it gives to landlords and education departments and ok, tax man? ( 8 years of language studies in a "private college") face it, economic migrants many of them, abused our trust (hey i am not going to get into the moral side of - ah who can blame them - but need be, member states are entitled to decide who you let in, the country does not owe them anything) - all of this is being said where eu law does not apply. the trust in who is a genuine asylum person is in rag order after people like pamela (i don't know her name) and the ibc 05 fiasco, much to the detriment of people who are at least from horrible war thorn countries.
it goes back to my basic point. where eu law does not apply, and if a non eu national comes into ireland or any country, and where they are not family members of eu people on arrival, they should enter ireland on work permits etc. why should people who come in legally on work permits be treated less favourably than other people who entered illegally or their legal right to stay expired and now they get it easy simply by engineering a family?
actually, for those who have actually worked their assess off and kept their work permits etc and put up with ALOT of crap, how do you feel about how easy it has been for others coming here (who would never have gotten the permits as the work force were not needed) and simply got status (full blown full right to work anywhere) by having a child or getting married? or what about those who came and applied for asylum without a CREDIBLE claim? ( i have little faith in that question being truthfully answered - i suppose that "story" is full of crap too)
to answer your question directly, if i was in that situation, i would be educated enough to realise that both situations are completely different and are based on different legal orders. i would also realise that all i have to do, if i was really bothered, would be to move to another eu country and return to ireland later, envoking my rights. because i know the laws, bar a bearing a child (which would be irish and no way would it leave ireland regardless of what happened to the mother) i would not marry that non eu woman unless and until they had status, or, i would be prepared to actually take the sacrifice and leave ireland to be with her, if she was to be removed. that of course is due to me knowing what the laws are.these are issues which people don't think about. why risk the inevitable divorce proceedings.
it is also likely that , provided that that person does not have a deportation order, that person would succeed in an application to stay in ireland provided. the department and court are not that bad, especially under the new regime - remember, the domestic decisions are administrative and not in legislation