Link to Dereci Judgment

[walrusgumble]

@wals i said am done arguing with you,You can bang your head against Eu-law or wait to become minister of Justice,then you can include your desire into the Irish law, when Zambrano ruling came out,even tho it was both non eu parents,you werent happy,you had to compare the law romanians.You said why would Eu law favour non nationals than romanians.Dereci came out,you were on jublilant mode on behalf of memberstates and same time saying Germany would be more worried than Ireland.is that not contradiction?

No it is not a contradiction from my part, I merely highlighted the double standards of the Zambrano case. My stance has always being that you can't take an artificial attitude to the Treaty, no interference to matters that do not concern EU law.

Dercei, as you pointed out, may favour the Turks. The Germans have a huge Turkish community. Germany oppose Turkish entry to the EU. Ireland is not really with Turks. Germans also have a similar "reverse discrimination" stance. It also has a larger immigration level. If the Germans can understand that EU law does not apply to "statics" then whats with this new attitude?

At all times, I have said that EU law can't interfere with internal matters. No matter what the Courts said in Zambrano, that situation is an internal matter. The reasoning in Zambrano is ridiculous and has exposed that Court with double standards, unintentionally, when it thought it was doing the right thing.

EU should never and can never apply to internal matters when a citizen is "static" in their own country. "reverse discrimination" is justified as it is for each Member State, and only that Member State to decide the fate of their nationals, whatever that maybe. It is not for the EU

Zambrano is an example of where it will save people of third countries who have little or no real link to a EU Country, but will not bat an eyelid when the Member States decide to qualify the free movement rights of an EU citizen ie Romanian, who is still required to hold a permit to work. If you were Romanian, you might see the contradiction there with what the EU has to say about them.

If you are a non eu parent of an eg Irish child in Ireland or a French child in France, but don't really have a link to the country such as 2-3 years LEGAL residency, you don't have to work or comply with Article 7 of Directive 2004/38 EC.

Yet, if the Irish child and non EU parents , who might have no legal status in Ireland (bear in mind most do under the IBC scheme) wanted to go to England and by doing so, relying on the Child's Status, they need to comply with Chen and be financially self sufficient.

Also

If you, a non EU person with no children, married a German and lived in Ireland, your status will depend on whether, as per EU law, your spouse complies with Article 7.

And then you have McCarthy, If an Irish person marries an illegal non EU and always live in Ireland, they can't rely on EU law (whether Metock or some form of Zambrano), nor can they even if there is an irish child via Dercei. Yet someone with no real links to the country bar a failed asylum case (pre 2004) can, under EU law

All of this, under the underestimate phrase, EU citizenship is destined (destined by who, may I ask) to be the fundamental status........ So much for getting rid of discrimination and enforcing equality by the EU Courts.

If the Court is going to come out with platitudes of the kind it has (which it refuses to explain itself, unlike the AG Sharpton), t should at least be consistent and not one rule for one group and another rule for another. THey should at least look after their own first (ie EU adults, within the confindes of the Treaty)

The whole point of the criticism towards the "Reverse Discrimination" Brigade and their understanding of what the Treaty says, is to highlight and possibly expose some advocates attitudes of their lack of interest in the contradictions and age/nationality discrimination cases like Zambrano raise itself. (granted, many advocates, genuinely, believe in total open eu,which is admirable and at least consistent with what they are saying) At least two posters have had the honesty to say that could not give a crap about the others (eg Romanians or other lawful EU citizens),

It is my understanding by the way, that the Irish Dept, somehow, are trying to interpret Zambrano, to stop certain EU citizens who are living in Ireland with their non eu partner and Irish Child (also likely an EU citizen via their EU parent's country), but not necessarily exercising Article 7 Directive rights (thus techincially illegal themselves, but that is actually questionable) - a valid question or point raised by a poster here and what the EU will do. - My statement does not suggest whether its right or wrong, but aimed at getting people to discuss the next possible case.

Arguing? Spouting up lies and making no comeback when you comments are beaten down, is hardly arguing. You'r trolling and were caught. So, walk away, please. The purpose of this thread was to leave up the judgment. I had no intention of commenting or commenting outside the judgment until you came along. Your comments, when out of line will be challenged, as I expect, others will do to my comments. At least I won't change goal posts and at least I will stick to truthful criticisms of what a poster has said.

You need to return to the old posts to see the Triumphed attitudes by you and many when you pourned scorn over my comments and about how wrong I was. If Dercei went well, you would DEFINITELY have been the first to post and rant about "incompetency" and other self serving stuff and pointing some interesting comments my way. You know you would.

If you want to discuss this case and this case only, you are more than welcome

Good day.

[walrusgumble]

boring topic????????????????????????????????

Yeahh, it is getting boring with the bitching, but you can thank Morris.

Do you have any views on this case?

[Regulator56]

Walrusgumble

Great to see you took my advise and paragraphed your post- easier to read and follow your line of thought. However, it is still full of embellishments, inaccuracies and awash of definitive comments on issues you are not in a position to make.

Firstly, you asked me to point out your inconsistencies, I will gladly oblige you. In the past you have severely criticized the British immigration when posters on this forum make a comparison between the Irish and the British in respect to citizenship procedures. You said the British were senselessly dishing away passports and you blamed this for problems of race relations in the country, however, you made a U-turn in a recent post and said the British and German set out very good citizenship procedures. That would suggest to any reasonable and discerning reader that you selectively use elements of immigration laws and policies to suit/corroborate your argument, depending on your motive at the time.

Another clear inconsistency that effectively supports my suspicion of your anti immigrant ideology is your laughable response to the scenario I gave you about a German and Australian couple with an Irish child. You said Zambrano would be in favor of the Australian because in your own words " Ireland has a history with the Aussies ". Might I remind you that Australia is a non-EU country just like Jamaica or Togo! what you are saying is that your mates at INIS might decide to override immigration policy if it involves countries that they have a history with? So essentially, they would treat people from certain countries differently depending on certain parameters that they privately determine- wont this be considered discriminatory?

I tried to ignore your imbecilic point about your views on how immigrants should plan their families because Ireland cannot guarantee their inalienable right to stay as a family unit . You can keep masking your lovely by using pathetic worn out arguments like Husbands who allow their wives to travel to Ireland- the issue we are discussing now is whether families should be separated when they have an Irish child? You said in a previous post that the Nigerian woman with an Irish spouse and child would not have won the right to stay in Ireland if the Dereci judgement hade been made prior to her case at the high court - that explains how hopelessly unintelligent you are. So basically, you agree with your mates at INIS that she and her family could go and live in Nigeria ? Thank God Ireland still has some sensible public office holders such as the judge that totally lambasted INIS and gave her the right to stay in Ireland. I would like to see how INIS can refuse similar cases in future without embarrassing themselves, well since you said most are your mates, I would not put it past them.

Walrusgumble, in my last post I put it to you that you would support (former) Mayor Scully's remarks about black Africans and indeed I was right. I don't know how any person in thier right mind cannot easily discern that his comments to exclude a particular set of people from representation is utter beloved, but as usual you try to willfully bask in your ignorance and comtinually justify his comments.

I have seen your pathetic posts on another forum recently supporting Scully and justifying his dearly beloved comments and you even criticized the labour TD that reported him to the Police. You clearly have serious issues with immigrants and you use all sorts of BS to support your theories. In all the reports and commentary on the Scully affair, you did not read that most of the representation sought was related to housing needs? but you purposefully focus on Immigration- Do you wake up in the morning looking for immigrants under your bed?

I like courageous men and women that stand on their principles and ideology, they would say what exactly they feel and what they believe in. You Walrusgumble should be courageous and tell people your exact agenda.

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgumble

Great to see you took my advise and paragraphed your post- easier to read and follow your line of thought. However, it is still full of embellishments, inaccuracies and awash of definitive comments on issues you are not in a position to make.


Firstly, you asked me to point out your inconsistencies, I will gladly oblige you. In the past you have severely criticized the British immigration when posters on this forum make a comparison between the Irish and the British in respect to citizenship procedures. You said the British were senselessly dishing away passports and you blamed this for problems of race relations in the country, however, you made a U-turn in a recent post and said the British and German set out very good citizenship procedures. That would suggest to any reasonable and discerning reader that you selectively use elements of immigration laws and policies to suit/corroborate your argument, depending on your motive at the time.

Where did I say that the "British were senselessly dishing away passports". Find the link please, because you have either invented that argument or utterly misunderstood what I have said, due to lack of quoting. You will find that I was commenting on the Irish authorities dishing out Irish Passports like confetti.

Any mention of the British or Germans in this context was not what the laws on citizenship were (bar the short statement above about the abolition of automatic citizenship by birth), but how they deal with incidents (immigration laws not citizenship laws) with non EU nationals who parent British or German nationals.

You clearly are making it up. So you better get the link, and then apologize for your sheer stupidity and / or dishonesty. I am sure if any misunderstanding of what I said, would partly be due to the way my posts were presented, however, there is absolutely no way a reasonably intelligent person could have interpret my statement in the manner that you have. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I was challenged you on a number of grossly inaccurate comments that you have made previously, and you did not respond.

If you fail to produce the statement(s) in full to support your interpretation, I will take it that your comment is unfounded.

Another clear inconsistency that effectively supports my suspicion of your anti immigrant ideology is your laughable response to the scenario I gave you about a German and Australian couple with an Irish child. You said Zambrano would be in favor of the Australian because in your own words " Ireland has a history with the Aussies ". Might I remind you that Australia is a non-EU country just like Jamaica or Togo! what you are saying is that your mates at INIS might decide to override immigration policy if it involves countries that they have a history with? So essentially, they would treat people from certain countries differently depending on certain parameters that they privately determine- wont this be considered discriminatory?

Anti-immigration , it is not anti immigration to oppose making it easier for non nationals who refuse to enter this country without proper visas and passports and permits and use the guise of family to get what they want. I also utterly oppose this trite of dearly beloved card when someone utters any sort of opposition. I have absolutely no issue with former Worker Permit holders availing of Zambrano like cases. I have no problem with third country nationals availing of Metock, provided they have legal status of some sort before the marriage.

As for your example, Zambrano would apply. I am aware that the department of justice are trying to limit the effects Zambrano even in cases relating eg the German or other EU national living in Ireland. Whether this is correct or not, I do not believe however, that the Department will give an adverse decision to an Aussie whether under Irish law

Stating the bleeding obvious, An Australian and American will always have better luck than an African in any immigration application made under Irish law.

You also know little or nothing about Irish governmental attitudes and the preference its willing to give to one group of countries over another. But yes, under Irish law (let's just take EU law out of the frame for one second), yes, Americans, Canadians , Australians would have a superior chance of residence over Africans.

Discrimination, maybe, but they are separate treaties/policies in place that between Ireland and those countries; and there is not such a policy with most African countries. Are visa requirement discrimination? Why do you think a country decides that what groups of countries require visas while the other does not? There is nothing stopping Pakistan and Ireland discussing some arrangement.

Either way, it's not like those of those who are relying on these kind of cases, came into Ireland legally in the first place, so they can hardly get on their high horse, but hey, EU law may save them

You don't seem to understand the word "Inconsistencies". Stating the bleeding obvious is hardly been inconsistent. What was I inconsistent with by the way. You also suggest I contradict myself (in other posts) , where?

I tried to ignore your imbecilic point about your views on how immigrants should plan their families because Ireland cannot guarantee their inalienable right to stay as a family unit . You can keep masking your lovely by using pathetic worn out arguments like Husbands who allow their wives to travel to Ireland- the issue we are discussing now is whether families should be separated when they have an Irish child? You said in a previous post that the Nigerian woman with an Irish spouse and child would not have won the right to stay in Ireland if the Dereci judgement hade been made prior to her case at the high court - that explains how hopelessly unintelligent you are. So basically, you agree with your mates at INIS that she and her family could go and live in Nigeria ? Thank God Ireland still has some sensible public office holders such as the judge that totally lambasted INIS and gave her the right to stay in Ireland. I would like to see how INIS can refuse similar cases in future without embarrassing themselves, well since you said most are your mates, I would not put it past them.

Those examples are TRUE!!!! and there is plenty of case law to prove it! Does the truth hurt? They are not my views, stating out publicly known facts does not involve forming a view . Again, what is that inconsistent of?

You say that "the issue we are discussing now is whether families should be separated when they have an Irish child? ".

I say that depends, whether or not the father was there for the birth. As the laws on Irish Citizenship changed in 2004, that is over 6 years ago, there will be very few cases concerning post 2004 children (but not impossible). Where were many of these fathers? If they were truly in Ireland (ie pre 2004 cases) why did they not get their status under the IBC scheme?

Do you want me to link up the cases, that will probably shut you up

Walrusgumble, in my last post I put it to you that you would support (former) Mayor Scully's remarks about black Africans and indeed I was right. I don't know how any person in thier right mind cannot easily discern that his comments to exclude a particular set of people from representation is utter beloved, but as usual you try to willfully bask in your ignorance and comtinually justify his comments.

Where did I say I supported Scully's views?. I said that if what he says is true, I could understand what he meant that. If Scully was representing LEGAL immigrants (not illegals - as he has absolutely NO obligation to help them) in Council business, then he was wrong.

If the matter was him helping them out in immigration issues (which many councillors will do by writing letters and helping in applications) then he has absolutely no obligation. He refers to "representation", he has not clarified what he meant by that, nor has he told us what he was doing.

I have seen your pathetic posts on another forum recently supporting Scully and justifying his dearly beloved comments and you even criticized the labour TD that reported him to the Police. You clearly have serious issues with immigrants and you use all sorts of BS to support your theories. In all the reports and commentary on the Scully affair, you did not read that most of the representation sought was related to housing needs? but you purposefully focus on Immigration- Do you wake up in the morning looking for immigrants under your bed?

Justifying his dearly beloved comments? Pointing out a possible scenerio is not defending him, we don't know why he was dealing with them and whether he has any obligation to them in the first place (If it was normal Council business, then he is wrong) That Labour TD is a SPIV of the highest order, (from other matters). Every body agrees that that Labour TD would have not gone near the Gardaí if it was a member of his own party

Nice to see, that you did not highlight that at all times, on boards.ie and politics.ie, that I pointed out that IF this concerned a refusal to provide council services, it may have been dearly beloved!

By the way, what a sad little turd you are, spending all that time checking up on other websites. I bet you check my profiles too. You are one sad miserable git.

BS to support my theory? Is Court Reports? Bullshit? Really? The "dearly beloved" and liberal brigade BS is coming to an end too. Get use to it.

I like courageous men and women that stand on their principles and ideology, they would say what exactly they feel and what they believe in. You Walrusgumble should be courageous and tell people your exact agenda.

My agenda, Stamp out illegal immigration and immigration abuses (two different things) and cut off all loopholes. Non EU residents who live here under Domestic law are expected NOT to be a burden on the State (may I say that most Work permit holders Have NEVER been a burden) and seek social assistance (bar what they have already contributed via working), that should remain that way. IBC mothers were told in their letters in 2005 and 2007 (but not 2010) to be economically viable or studying. Many never worked a day in their lives. Some have relied heavily on social and never worked, despite the requirement.

"My agenda" Its pretty clear, always has been.

Have you ever heard me complain about work permit holders? No, you have not, and you never will. Have you heard me complain about any EU national who decides to exercise their Treaty rights to come over here and work? No, you have not, and you never will.



Yourself and Morris have a habit of having very little mud to throw back at me after I respond to your posts. So end it now, because in reality, you will just try and find another topic (moving the goal posts) are return, only to be rebutted, easily). Its getting boring

If you have something worth while to say about Dercei, then discuss it. If not shut up and create your own bitching thread.

[Regulator56]

Walrusgumble, you are loosing the plot now aren't you? I did not go around other sites looking for you! I went to other sites to read on a particular case that I was interested in (the beloved of an elected Irish politician towards black Africans) and I noticed you were there pathetically justifying his comments. You are saying if it was representations regarding immigration , then Scully was right to make a comment that he would no longer represent black Africans and you say you are not a lovey. You are still insisting that the Labour TD that reported the dearly beloved comments to the Gardai was wrong? I do not care if he would have done the same if it was a Labour politician that made the same dearly beloved comment- all I care is that people know that the Mayors comments were unacceptable and unjust-well except you and your cohorts.

I did not have to go through your post history to know what exactly your thoughts are regarding immigration and immigrants. Even a cursory look at your posts here is enough proof of your ideology. I put it to you that your argument about Nigerian men that allowed their pregnant wives to travel to Ireland is worn out and irrelevant to this discussion-just like you do not like posters pointing out the paradoxical nature of Irish attitude towards immigration when they have citizens that are illegal immigrants in the US, Canada etc. Is that not an inconsistency? you dismiss any reference to Illegal Irish in the US but you talk about a phenomenon that has ceased to exist as there is no longer an automatic entitlement to Irish citizenship based on been born in the state.

You said you have a problem with Immigrants that do not work- you made specific reference to IBC recipients who have never worked a day in Ireland. You accuse posters, including myself of making unsubstantiated comments, what proof do you have that most have not worked? through your mates in TIPP/DUBLIN? Lets assume that your assertion is true, well it opens up a new can of worms for the discriminatory attitude of the Irish towards immigrants. I recently saw an article about that the utter beloved immigrants experience in terms of securing jobs in Ireland:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 31224.html


walrus- note that this research was carried by the ERSI so you cannot critique it on the basis of reliability,credibility or validity.

That would form a practical, sensible explanation why some immigrants are finding it a great challenge been gainfully employed in Ireland and as you would observe from excerpts of the research, it becomes even more exponentially difficult for black Africans.

"A study found discrimination is so widespread it would be "a one in a million chance" that the preference for Irish-only job seekers is an accident".


"The results of 'Discrimination in Recruitment' showed much higher levels of discrimination in Ireland than found in other European countries".

Furthermore, a lot of these immigrants, even after all these discriminatory attitudes towards them decided to be entrepreneurial and start driving Taxis, unless you are been disingenuous, you would know what they have been subjected to in this country.


I cannot believe you are still justifying your comments about the Australians. You acknowledged it is discriminatory, is that the way your mates make decisions at INIS, they automatically make an assumption on which case would be successful based on the nationality or facial background of the applicant? You pathetically brought up treaties signed with the countries you mention when we were discussing Zambrano.

I am not like other posters that capitulate when you try to obfuscate the discussion by using bad language or bringing up irrelevancies. You are uncouth, you have an anti immigration agenda and I will continue to point that out to you.

N.B. I would look for the post where you criticized the British citizenship system and how you changed your tone in a recent post

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgumble, you are loosing the plot now aren't you? I did not go around other sites looking for you! I went to other sites to read on a particular case that I was interested in (the beloved of an elected Irish politician towards black Africans) and I noticed you were there pathetically justifying his comments. You are saying if it was representations regarding immigration , then Scully was right to make a comment that he would no longer represent black Africans and you say you are not a lovey. You are still insisting that the Labour TD that reported the dearly beloved comments to the Gardai was wrong? I do not care if he would have done the same if it was a Labour politician that made the same dearly beloved comment- all I care is that people know that the Mayors comments were unacceptable and unjust-well except you and your cohorts.

You clearly were going round other sites, not that it matters, its a free world. Obviously, I do not suggest that you do it with any notion to follow me. You should never have taken what was said that literally. I was being a smart arse.

Scully should have kept his mouth shut. There was nothing stopping him from refusing to deal with any immigration representations. He would not be a lovey to refuse to assist any black african in their immigration case, he has no obligation to do so. He would be a lovey if he refused to assist them in COuncil work.

We don't know what representations he did, whether it was council work or immigration, so there is no point speculating. But my posts are clear of him, he knew the story long before seeking re-election so he knew that he would have to deal with everyone, even immigrants, assuming he is against them.

I did not have to go through your post history to know what exactly your thoughts are on immigrants.

Well you do on this one. It was you who have made groundless claims, on the supposed basis of what I supposedly said in earlier posts. You make claims that I have said something in earlier posts, yet your show your failure to actually understand what was said in the first place. Your really going to do well in Europe.

Even a cursory look at your posts here is enough proof of your ideology. I put it to you that your argument about Nigerian men that allowed their pregnant wives to travel to Ireland is worn out and irrelevant to this discussion-just like you do not like posters pointing out the paradoxical nature of Irish attitude towards immigration when they have citizens that are illegal immigrants in the US, Canada etc. Is that not an inconsistency?

What ideology? To insist that laws are maintained, dear god!

A majority of people in this country are sick to death of illegal immigration. Any self respecting and law abiding person on this site, would accept the bone fides to that. These illegals get better treated than a law abiding non EU person who came to Ireland on a work permit. DEAL WITH THAT! I would love to see what work permit and former work permit holders think of that situation (childless ones, because its pretty moot now with Zambrano, and for them, I am glad that they are being looked after). You can not deny that what I have said is untrue.

A very large amount of Nigerians never came on work permits or student visas. Very few of them, who are married to EU nationals, were even meet them in other countries but in Ireland. That is why Nigerians are being picked on, they make up a large proportion of the illegal immigrants. That is just a fact of life,its not personal. If Nigerians had come in, even at some point on a work permit (and then lost it through no fault of their own), there would not be as much alleged hostility and rightly then, they should be looked after.

The argument on Nigerian men etc; It is only irrelevant for those who have something to loose. As a Non Irish Citizen, you have absolutely no say in what is relevant or irrelevant, it is rather self serving. It is still relevant because they are mostly the kinds of men (not necessarily all Nigerian) who brought cases before the High Court just before Zambrano, and many, for whatever reason, are still waiting for decisions despite Shatter's March declaration. Those cases have not gone away,you know. So no, its not irrelevant. And it point out why this scenario must never happen again. (It would be a different issue if they had come with their family in the first place)

As for paradoxical nature of Irish Illegals etc. I have no issue with it. I have made my point clear on this many of times on this site. Maybe if you go and get your facts rights. Do probably hate the fact that I have genuinely supported their deportation from whatever country that they are in. You break laws, you must suffer the consequences. The government don't speak for me when it lobbies their politicians.

How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered

you dismiss any reference to Illegal Irish in the US but you talk about a phenomenon that has ceased to exist as there is no automatic entitlement to Irish citizenship based on been born in the state.

Show me where I have dismissed it. I have acknowledged it and I have said that they should be returned to Ireland . I have dismissed a lot of the comments made about it because they are truely and laughably nonsense. But the tone and purpose of the statements, no I have no dismissed it. BUT let us get a number of things straight and cease this self servance

Comparisons with those countries (USA etc) and Africa and Asia are totally irrelevant. There is no point comparing them. Ireland won't ship Americans etc out if they have immigration problems in Ireland, they will at least give them a chance. So there is the relationship it meet both ways. Americans etc are well looked after on other issues eg Shannon. Illegal Immigration is rife in America, you don't hear the illegal Irish being centre of the complaints? WHy? That is not saying that they should be favoured of course.

THe only people entitled to make any comment on the Irish Illegals, are those who come from the countries that the Irish are located, and where that person has a problem with Irish immigration. Then that's fair comment. Others, its just ranting and raving and clutching straws.

There is no such link with Africa and Asia between Ireland. Different story and you know it. How come every other country takes this stance, even old Rulers like Britain and France? Why are they less welcoming to their former colonies?

That is not being dismissive, but explaining why its different. What America etc does is their business.

You said you have a problem with Immigrants that do not work- you made specific reference to IBC recipients who have never worked a day in Ireland

I said many, I did not say all. What's your problem?, its true. There was an economic boom, there was no difficulty for anyone in getting work. Many black Africans did get work in service. How many have construction skills?

I would like to ask immigrants who lived legally in Ireland during the boom, how difficult was it to get work?

Lets assume that your assertion is true, well it opens up a new can of worms for the discriminatory attitude of the Irish towards immigrants. I recently saw an article about that the utter beloved immigrants experience in terms of securing jobs in Ireland:

If they are qualified to do the job, maybe its discrimination and they were treated badly.

But your assuming that they
(a) Have a good standard in ENglish, both reading and writing
(b) have the equivalent academic qualifications
(c) There were no better candidates for the job
(d) They had the experience required to do the work

walrus- note that this research was carried by the ERSI so you cannot critique it on the basis of reliability,credibility or validity.

I won't critique. But, did ERSI discuss the matter with IBEQ and or employers (I have not read , so you will have to explain) as to why they would not hire?

That would form a practical, sensible explanation why some immigrants are finding it a great challenge been gainfully employed in Ireland and as you would observe from excerpts of the research, it becomes even more exponentially difficult for black Africans.

I accept this. But that is not Ireland's problem. It needed skilled workers not burdens. It had to take Irish and EU citizens (and NON EU family members of Irish Citizens) as priority. Construction was the main source of jobs during the good days. How many guys had the skills and experience?

Plenty of lads doing a decent days work on the LUAS. Prior to 2008, it was rarish to see an Irish face in Tesco's Dunnes etc checkouts (I make no comment on that, as Employment rates were up to 2 million Irish)

Your beloved illegal Irish that you are so found of cited, went out and did whatever job possible and paid, from their own pockets classes for education and evening classes.

The Irish got all the guff in the 1960-1990's whether it was due to being Catholics or the IRA crap in the UK. The Irish did not piss and moan and demanded to be helped, they went out and fought anyone that got in their way. They were discriminated against but got on with it.

To say one can't get a job, in the height of the economic boom
is difficult to accept. Employers were ready to employ anyone they could exploit (wages wise)

There was little excuse during the boom. After the boom, I would not be criticial, not for one milisecond.

"A study found discrimination is so widespread it would be "a one in a million chance" that the preference for Irish-only job seekers is an accident".

Today, yes, that is true, few other countries would do differently, it happens all the time.

You want my opinion: While I would hope an Irish person has a better chance, if a person, (even if an immigrant, but so long as legal) is better suited : ability and skills wise, then the better man should get the job.

This does not excuse them during the boom though as most abled bodied Irish people were working already.

Furthermore, a lot of these immigrants, even after all these discriminatory attitudes towards them decided to be entrepreneurial and start driving Taxis, unless you are been disingenuous, you would know what they have been subjected to in this country.

Who taxi drivers? Only messing, yes, immigrants do have it tough. But Taxi drivers, Irish included, actually are subjected to abuse, threats, and assaults every weekend. So don't go trying to use that horrible sad incident that has recently happened as a race issue. The Gardaí have made it clear that race had nothing to do with it.

That's the fathers (and fair play to them) what about the mothers.

I cannot believe you are still justifying your comments about the Australians. You acknowledged it is discriminatory, is that the way your mates make decisions at INIS, they automatically make an assumption of which case would be successful based on the nationality or facial background of the applicant? You pathetically brought up treaties signed with the countries you mention when we were discussing Zambrano.

I am justifying nothing. Your telling me that Australian would not be treated favourably?

Excuse me, you are the one that keeps bringing up the Irish in America and Austrialia, Your the one that suggested (despite having talk to all understanding about the country) that what I said was tosh. I have only explained the position. This is what goes on. I am only saying your comparisons are nonsense. You are ragging that an answer was provided, you hoped there would be nothing to say. It is not pathetic to point out arrangements between different countries when it was you who questioned it in the first place.


Justified? Maybe when China, Nigeria etc etc does something for Ireland, then maybe Ireland will return the favour. That is how foreign affairs works. To suggest otherwise is highely naive. I ain't the one who implements or created this stuff.

I am not like other posters that capitulate when you try to obfuscate the discussion by using bad language or bringing up irrelevancies. You are uncouth, you have an anti immigration agenda and I will continue to point that out to you.

I am simply responding to what you have said. You find my comments irrelevant , yet they are only replies to clearly irrelevant comments made by Morris and you. You are no different to Morris in that respect, but at least appear to be more intelligent and or genuine.

You have no problems with Illegal immigrants abusing any immigration system? They are the only problem, the rest of the immigrants are ok with me.What is your problem? It's dearly beloved to complain about illegals?

WHAT DOES YOUR COUNTRY DO?

N.B. I would look for the post where you criticized the British citizenship system and how you changed your tone in a recent post

Please do, and when you do, quote EVERYTHING. Best of luck , you won't find anything damning. I have never criticized Britain's decision regarding you it will give or refuse citizenship too.

THe nearest that you will find to criticisms on British Citizenship is how it takes such a short time in making decisions which are predetermined by legislation (You meet the statutory requirements you will likely be getting it). But that is in relation to NATURALISATION and not Citizenship as of Birth, so its HIGHLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

Try and keep whatever criticisms that you have related to the topic of the thread will you.

So, what other angles will you be moving to later? You should be running out of them by now.


Stop trolling. You have no intention of discussing this case.

You still have to point out the inconsistencies.

[Obie]

I have warned you on several occassions walrusgumble that your lovely packed peverse ideologies on immigrant is not welcomed on this forum.

You have started picking on specific ethnicity to fulfill your rabid fantacies and views and this will not be tolerated under any circumstance.

You are seeking to incite discord in the forum and to villify member of Irish community in an unjustified manner. We will not put up with this at all.

There is no evidence to support you baseless and ignorant assertion that the majority of Nigerians are illegal immigrant or are people who entered ireland without work permits.

I implore you to either retract those false assertion or provide evidence to back it .

You are free to support any criminal dearly beloved politician or even campaign on their behalf on other forum but not this.

Please dont exhaust my patience. You have had you laugh and honeymoon on dereci, i am sure the time has ripen for you to sling your hook.

[Regulator56]

Walrus, are you incapable of reading and comprehending a simple article?

I would provide it again- http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 31224.html

I said to you that this discriminatory attitude of the Irish towards immigrants could explain why some immigrants are not working and your response was:

If they are qualified to do the job, maybe its discrimination. But your assuming that they
(a) Have a good standard in ENglish, both reading and writing
(b) have the equivalent academic qualifications
(c) There were not better candidates for the job




Are you sure you actually worked in the public sector? That would be damning and shocking, how did you pass the entry test? I am sure a lot of immigrants would be better qualified than you given your line of reasoning .

The article expressly said:

beloved is rife in Irish companies, with a majority of firms twice as likely to give an Irish person an interview than a foreign national with precisely the same qualifications.

It further explained that....


"Researchers sent 240 pairs of similar but fictitious CVs bearing Irish, African, Asian and German names to companies and found the Irish applicants were twice as likely to be contacted for interview".

In some cases, Irish applicants were told the position had been filled but were offered interviews for other posts while African candidates did not get a response of any kind.

After an Irish and Asian candidate applied for an admin job, the Irish person got a call over her CV while the Asian candidate got an email saying: "I regret to inform you the position is now filled."


The companies made a decision not to even give the immigrants a chance to show their skill or expertise but they dismissed their application based on race and nationality. Remember they said the CVs sent had similar qualifications and experience. So dont try and be disingenuous by implying the irish workers were better qualified than the immigrants.

You said CSO reports indicate that 45% of IBC recipients never worked- care to provide a link supporting that figure? You said they went to mickey mouse centers- you mean FAS training courses they were offered? If it would not improve their prospects of securing employment, why were those IBC recipients offered those courses or why are those courses running at all?

In relation to the Scully case, you are still defending his comments if those representations were immigration based. You are just unbelievably ignorant- so lets for arguments sake assume that the representations were immigration based so you are suggesting it would be only black Africans that would have immigration problems in Naas? So basically, from his comments, he is willing to take on representations from White Africans , Asians that have immigration problems but not the Black ones? I have theorised that you are a lovey like Scully and you are just consistently providing evidence to support my theory.


You said as a Non-Irish citizen, I cannot comment on what is relevant or not. First of all, how do you know I am not Irish and in the event that I am not, I would be within my right as a resident in this country to comment on it. Or do you just generally assume that because I am taking you up or your anti-immigrant ideology and the fact that I am criticizing Mr Scully, then I am must be Non-Irish?


You Walrus said....

How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered

So you are indeed alleging that not only are applicants discriminated on the the basis of race and nationality but they also pay their way to be legally documented in the country?


I pointed to you that despite the difficulty immigrants face in securing employment in Ireland , many immigrants resort to driving taxis and they have been discriminated against, suffered abuse and one was murdered last week and all you said about that was what about the mothers? Where is it mandatory that both parents have to work and what evidence do you have that the mothers dont work? I thought you said you didnt have a problem with immigrants that work? but you have a problem with their spouses if they dont work? You said the fathers in IBC cases were absent, as someone with close friends at INIS , would you care to ask them the number of fathers that applied to join their families in Ireland and the success rates of those applications.

I have told you are an immigrant hating person and you try to impose your agenda everywhere you write. Like I asked you yesterday, do you wake up looking for them under your bed? You mask your lovely by claiming you have no problems with Immigrants that work but you query why immigrant taxi driver's wives arent working. You are devious and hypocritical.

[walrusgumble]

I have warned you on several occassions walrusgumble that your lovely packed peverse ideologies on immigrant is not welcomed on this forum.

You have started picking on specific ethnicity to fulfill your rabid fantacies and views and this will not be tolerated under any circumstance.

You are seeking to incite discord in the forum and to villify member of Irish community in an unjustified manner. We will not put up with this at all.

There is no evidence to support you baseless and ignorant assertion that the majority of Nigerians are illegal immigrant or are people who entered ireland without work permits.

1. Read my first post. I had no intention of talking at all, until Morris. If you were doing your job, you would have questioned the relevancy of Morris and to a lesser extent, Regulator's posts. You have not allowed this thread to degenerate into a manner like the last thread, which is the intentions of certain people. My discussion with the other posters, such as Rip WInkle, as you can see, is an example of what this thread was bone fide intended to do. There was no glory or smart arse remarks. The very fact that neither Morris or Regulator quoted those comments are clear that they had no intention to discuss the case

2. As for unfoundness and groundless. Ha , they are familiar words to some of you, no, ?

The facts are easily found.

Work Permit Stats

http://www.djei.ie/labour/workpermits/statistics.htm

Look harder you will have archives for 1999-2005.

Compare that to the level of Nigerians who came, applied, withdrew, succeeded or were refused Asylum

http://www.orac.ie/pages/Stats/statistics.htm

I do not like using wikiepdia but look at the sources to it. I accept any criticism on this, because it is not reliable. But, these issues, are not relevant and were not intitially brought up by me. But, If you want a discussion on that, fine, open a new thread and demand sources (the correct thing to do)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerians_in_Ireland

Want more? Will I provide the court case reports? (its not relevant to this topic)

I implore you to either retract those false assertion or provide evidence to back it .

I completely agree that false assertions should never be allowed. Nice to see that you have learned to become a moderator. Now go and demand that Morris does the same from now on.

However, they are not false assertions.

The evidence above,from the respective departments shows this. I will happily engage in discussion on this, but not on this thread.

You are free to support any criminal dearly beloved politician or even campaign on their behalf on other forum but not this.

You could provide evidence to back up the false assertions that you have made, because you certainty have no grace or decency to sorry when you are wrong.

But yes, you are correct, campaign etc has no place on this site. But,I was not campaigning, nor was I campaigning on his behalf on the other sites either , nor was I justifying. My peers on those sites accept that, but you conveniently can not.

Please dont exhaust my patience. You have had you laugh and honeymoon on dereci, i am sure the time has ripen for you to sling your hook.

Start ensuring balance so. I won't back down when reading utter nonsense. On this thread alone, I have had to rebut, and successfully do so, a number of comments at least 3-4 times. Had those who made those comments actually did some research they would not have been made.

There was a lot of dearly beloved rubbish uttered about this country during the metock and zambrano debates. A lot of self service too that few of ye would get away with in your own countries. If you say something you should be challenged. Like Regulator is doing now, with my comments.



Again, there was a discussion between myself and van winkle and any one else who wanted to discuss the matter. It was a bone fide thread. It was not intended to gloat. Look at what was discussed. There was no malice in what was discussed. Just two posters with chips on their shoulder trying to have a pop.

By the way, your comments are not exactly impartial are they, when you refuse to address the short comings of other posters in the art of trolling and making comments that have no support.

I am asking you now, to do your job, this thread should not be high jacked.

[walrusgumble]

Walrus, are you incapable of reading and comprehending a simple article?

I would provide it again- http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 31224.html

I said to you that this discriminatory attitude of the Irish towards immigrants could explain why some immigrants are not working and your response was:

If they are qualified to do the job, maybe its discrimination. But your assuming that they
(a) Have a good standard in ENglish, both reading and writing
(b) have the equivalent academic qualifications
(c) There were not better candidates for the job




Are you sure you actually worked in the public sector? That would be damning and shocking, how did you pass the entry test? I am sure a lot of immigrants would be better qualified than you given your line of reasoning .

The article expressly said:

beloved is rife in Irish companies, with a majority of firms twice as likely to give an Irish person an interview than a foreign national with precisely the same qualifications.

It further explained that....


"Researchers sent 240 pairs of similar but fictitious CVs bearing Irish, African, Asian and German names to companies and found the Irish applicants were twice as likely to be contacted for interview".

In some cases, Irish applicants were told the position had been filled but were offered interviews for other posts while African candidates did not get a response of any kind.

After an Irish and Asian candidate applied for an admin job, the Irish person got a call over her CV while the Asian candidate got an email saying: "I regret to inform you the position is now filled."


The companies made a decision not to even give the immigrants a chance to show their skill or expertise but they dismissed their application based on race and nationality. Remember they said the CVs sent had similar qualifications and experience. So dont try and be disingenuous by implying the irish workers were better qualified than the immigrants.

You said CSO reports indicate that 45% of IBC recipients never worked- care to provide a link supporting that figure? You said they went to mickey mouse centers- you mean FAS training courses they were offered? If it would not improve their prospects of securing employment, why were those IBC recipients offered those courses or why are those courses running at all?

Before I deal with this, its nice how you paraphrase to suit your needs. You forgot this
"Mr Bacon added that society and some employers, while having generally positive attitudes towards immigrants, may regard foreign workers as less productive because of factors such as language skills."


I already said that I had not read it, nor do I intend to (I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt, especially when you provided so much detail in the post itself. I assumed you were taking it word for word from the links. You pretty much did.). I asked you to explain what it said, in my last post, you did.

I did not and I do not disagree with most of it

You gave opinion in addition to that, which you are entitled to do so.

I even accepted that there was discrimination in the work force. But I don't believe that it is as clear cut as you or the authors of the article like to believe it is.

I don't agree with some of your opinion or the opinion of the researchers , no matter how prominent they are. I simply asked you did ERSI talk to the employers and IBEQ

And yes, the FÁS course that were on offer in the past few years are mickey mouse, not just for immigrants but also for Irish and actually do little for job prospects ie the kind of work that Ireland is trying to attract. I don't criticize the immigrants by the way on this.

In relation to the Scully case, you are still defending his comments if those representations were immigration based. You are just unbelievably ignorant- so lets for arguments sake assume that the representations were immigration based so you are suggesting it would be only black Africans that would have immigration problems in Naas?

Excuse me, but before who utter who is and who is not ignorant, go back and read what I have said on the posts on the other sites. In plain English, I have actually said that it would be discrimination , if he refused to assist black african in immigration matters, but would agree to assist another group, such as , in your example , white Africans. It would not be justified. How about learning to get your facts correct just once.

How would it be dearly beloved to refuse to assist any immigrant in their immigration case. He has no qualification, he has no obligation as a Councillor. Next you will be saying immigration laws are dearly beloved. Then you will be saying a private person (white a councillor would be in this case) is wacist for not helping out in immigration matters. It would not take a genious to guess that most of Naas' non Irish population , outside Brits, maybe "Black Africans". What was he going to call them (hey , he could have phrased it better, or just said nothing)

So basically, from his comments, he is willing to take on representations from White Africans , Asians that have immigration problems but not the Black ones? I have theorised that you are a lovey like Scully and you are just consistently providing evidence to support my theory.

If that was the case, he would be wrong, and it would be dearly beloved. But, hey, I have already said that in the other sites, but don't let a good rant get in your way.

Theorized. Good man, your some clown, how about actually correctly interpreting the words actually said?

You said as a Non-Irish citizen, I cannot comment on what is relevant or not. First of all, how do you know I am not Irish and in the event that I am not, I would be within my right as a resident in this country to comment on it. Or do you just generally assume that because I am taking you up or your anti-immigrant ideology and the fact that I am criticizing Mr Scully, then I am must be Non-Irish?

On the relevancy issue, that was in relation to the comparisons of Irish Illegals with illegal immigrants in Ireland that many of you love to bring up. I say its irrelevant. You don't, lets discuss that so. I again, make no issue with legal immigrants, especially those who came on work permits.

So, your a citizen or not? (it is not really relevant, but you might as well disclose)

You Walrus said....

How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered

So you are indeed alleging that not only are applicants discriminated on the the basis of race and nationality but they also pay their way to be legally documented in the country?

THey are being discriminated against. But, aren't visa requirements, stipulated by EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, against some countries, discrimination so?

Look at America for example. Irish don't get as much hassle as the Mexicans, why?

I pointed to you that despite the difficulty immigrants face in securing employment in Ireland , many immigrants resort to driving taxis and they have been discriminated against,

I acknowledge that. They do. But as for taxi drivers in general, some of the crap an immigrant driver has to face, is no different. It is harder of course.

suffered abuse and one was murdered last week and all you said about that was what about the mothers?

WHere is the evidence that is was race related? The Gardaí have ruled it out. It will now be for the Courts and Jury to decide. Just because a black man was sadly killed (I don't want to be flippant), it does not always mean that it was race motivated. It should never happen by the way.

Where is it mandatory that both parents have to work and what evidence do you have that the mothers dont work?

No mandatory obligation,

What about the single mothers?

Single mother allowance, rent allowance etc (Ah, don't worry I am not one of those who thinks they get X,Y,Z for free or any of that)


You can't compare them to IRish or EU as their residency was actually based on self sufficiency. (fair enough if one family member worked)

I thought you said you didnt have a problem with immigrants that work? but you have a problem with their spouses if they dont work?

Every one should be working, there is no free lunch. You made the decision to come here and raise family, then do it, but without support from the State (within reason)

The IBC applications were assessed individually not as a family unit.

You said the fathers in IBC cases were absent, as someone with close friends at INIS , would you care to ask them the number of fathers that applied to join their families in Ireland and the success rates of those applications.

I am talking about father who came to Ireland AFTER 2005 Scheme was over. I have issue with those who stayed away from the mother and child for up to 2-4 years, that to me is unacceptable, and if they were Irish deserve a kicking. Most of the fathers who tried to get in after the IBC Scheme are in Court at this time.

I have told you are an immigrant hating person and you try to impose your agenda everywhere you write. Like I asked you yesterday, do you wake up looking for them under your bed? You mask your lovely by claiming you have no problems with Immigrants that work but you query why immigrant taxi driver's wives arent working. You are devious and hypocritical.

Hypocritical? I have no problem with those who work because they, then are not relying on social welfare to the extent as those who are unemployed. Those who work contribute to society. Those who do not work do not contribute to society. Society can't afford (despite what our constitution says) having only one parent working, it needs both parents working, like most Irish Families did , during the boom.

Its not hypocritical at all.

By the way, I am referring to work permit holders and former work permit holders. They were invited in the first place.

But, how many taxi drivers came to Ireland via work permits. How did most get in?

[/u]

[Regulator56]

Walrus, you would go to any length to support your discriminatory views towards immigrants.

The summary of the research commissioned by the equality authority and carried out by ERSI is as follows:

The study showed:

Irish applicants were called to interview 78 times while minority candidates were invited 38 times, giving a ratio of 2.05 -- Irish people were twice as likely to be called back.
In the case of Irish versus African applicants only, the study found 18 Irish applicants were called back compared to just five applicants with African sounding names.
When it came to Asian names, just seven were called back compared with 19 applicants with Irish names.
Eighteen Irish names got a call back compared to three with German sounding names.



Mr Bacon said: society and some employers, while having generally positive attitudes towards immigrants, may regard foreign workers as less productive because of factors such as language skills.

That is tangential to the research findings, he gave an opinion about the attitude of some employers and the society in general to explain the abysmal and disgraceful research finding. The research was based on sending out similar CVs with identical qualifications from Irish institutions where they were taught in English-so a question of language skills in the research itself is irrelevant.

You said you don't agree with my comments or indeed that of the researchers, would that surprise anyone MrWalrus? because they have not concluded that Nigerians or black Africans are inherently lazy like you have previously suggested, then you would disagree. Keep wallowing in your ignorance!

You have consistently argued that Mr Scullys comments were taken out of context and cannot be ascribed as dearly beloved until we know exactly what service the black Africans were supposedly aggressively demanding representation for. I have consistently said your view is nonsensical and hypocritical, I don't think the context of the service been sought by his black African constituents is relevant and cannot be used as a sort of caveat to justify his comments. He labelled an entire group of people as having some idiosyncratic nature of aggressiveness and rudeness and proceeded to indicate he would stop representing them. How any rational thinking person is still providing senseless permutations as to how the society could excuse his comments is beyond me!


Why should I disclose my nationality to you? It is purely irrelevant in the context of this discussion and more importantly it is absolutely none of your business. I have a problem with injustice both against Irish people and non- Irish people, Immigrants have suffered casual beloved in Ireland over the years and it is very sad that a public official in the form of a Mayor of a major town in Ireland should put a definable face to beloved in the country.

I am not arguing about visa requirements here Walrus-stop purposely trying to confuse issues. The argument about Australia started when I gave an analogy about a German and Australian couple with an Irish child- I asked you if zambrano can apply to the Australian if he was illegal. You said it will favor the Australia because the Aussies have a history with Ireland so that would be put into consideration by officials at INIS and would lead to a positive outcome. I said to you dont you think that would be discriminatory if other non -EU nationals are treated differently and you went on a tirade of telling BS about some special relationship with US, Canada and Australia.

You Walrus said:

How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered

Can you please explain if you can what you meant by the above comment?

Again you go on pontificating about how certain people should behave or live their lives. You recently suggested that immigrants should practice family planning because Ireland cannot guarantee them residence here even if an Irish child is involved which I think is what Zambrano clarified. Now you are saying wives of African taxi drivers are not working, I asked you to provide proof of that statement, as which other things, you fail to provide evidence and went on about some chicken and bull story about how the Irish are model citizens all over the world. I brought up the Nigerian taxi driver that was killed in Dublin to highlight the severe and difficult environment in which immigrant taxi drivers operate in Ireland. as for whether his murder was racially motivated, I would leave that to the courts to determine. If I recollect correctly, when the Nigeria youngster was killed last year, the initial suggestions by the Gardai were that it wasn't a dearly beloved attack, as with this case the radio commentary on Joe Duffy etc is always self-defense BS. I will let the courts decide on that, so do not say it wasn't racially motivated as in a statement of FACT! It is indeed possible that it was.

You had previously said you had no problem with immigrants that are working, now you say you have a problem if their spouse are not working- you are morbidly retarded if you think anyone believes you.


You said:


am talking about father who came to Ireland AFTER 2005 Scheme was over. I have issue with those who stayed away from the mother and child for up to 2-4 years, that to me is unacceptable, and if they were Irish deserve a kicking. Most of the fathers who tried to get in after the IBC Scheme are in Court at this time.

I am asking why those fathers could not come to Ireland to join their families? Can you provide evidence of how many applications were made by fathers to join their children in Ireland? How many of those applications were granted? How long did these applications take before decisions were made?

My summary is that the Dept was culpable in not granting visas for these men to join their families. A lot of them had to come to Ireland illegally after applications to join their families had been refused several times. So do not be disingenuous and say those men abandoned their families- in most cases they were not given the opportunity by your mates in TIPP and Dublin..

[IQU]

i am agree

[Morrisj]

lol you gonna look for where the Anti-immigrants criticized the British?Thought you knew him better,He edits most of his comment after seeing his error,so plz do not bother.I already knew his kind of person when Zambrano ruling came out.Lil kids can easily point out who Mr wals is,by reading his posts.I think silence is the best answer.Mr wals take a look at our arguments on Zambrano,its really funny you dont have problem with Zambrano anymore.Whats your aim?be bold enough to say it will ye?

[Morrisj]

I observed two things about you.
Anyone that does not support your view,you conclude he/she is not Irish and tend to know about their country of Origin,now am saying why dont you,Mr wals post your full names,D.O.B and location,I know you from Ireland but where?U like that ehh?Tho you mentioned the below statement to the moderator but i think you are the person actually doing that (posting irrelevant stuff to increase your posts)Are you doing it to show off or become a moderator yourself?hehe nice dream

[walrusgumble]

Walrus, you would go to any length to support your discriminatory views towards immigrants.

The summary of the research commissioned by the equality authority and carried out by ERSI is as follows:

The study showed:

Irish applicants were called to interview 78 times while minority candidates were invited 38 times, giving a ratio of 2.05 -- Irish people were twice as likely to be called back.
In the case of Irish versus African applicants only, the study found 18 Irish applicants were called back compared to just five applicants with African sounding names.
When it came to Asian names, just seven were called back compared with 19 applicants with Irish names.
Eighteen Irish names got a call back compared to three with German sounding names.



Mr Bacon said: society and some employers, while having generally positive attitudes towards immigrants, may regard foreign workers as less productive because of factors such as language skills.

That is tangential to the research findings, he gave an opinion about the attitude of some employers and the society in general to explain the abysmal and disgraceful research finding. The research was based on sending out similar CVs with identical qualifications from Irish institutions where they were taught in English-so a question of language skills in the research itself is irrelevant.

Ok, before you complain about the length of this post, remember, you raised alot of issues. I have tried to answer all those issues in full. Whatever reply you make, please be specific, I have no intention of repeating. Don't assume anything, if its not clear, seek clarification, I don't want to be listening to you ranting and allowing this thread go further off topic than it already has.

Now, dealing with your comment

Be realistic,

Name one country that is prepared to priorities non EU nationals over nationals of the their country and nationals of other EU Countries? That why work permits are in place, and they reduced dramatically when newer countries came into the Union. Be honest

What African or Asian countries will prefer to give jobs to European or American over and above nationals of their own countries?

Was IBEQ questioned on this? How many of these business/Corporations were Irish owned? Irish managed?

What jobs were applied for? How come a lot of these people had no problems in catering, hotels, cleaning, bus drivers, Luas. who are these nationals that applied? (I am asking, not trying to challenge)

As I say again, in my opinion, if your qualified, your nationality should not be relevant, so long as you have the right to work

These problems are absolutely no different in any other country. the immigrant always will be kicked to the curb first.

Sadly, in this country, its not about what you know but who you know. In business, its all about connections. Trust me, whether its in sport or business, there are many people who are in the position that they are in because of who they are connected too. If Irish people have problems getting in, immigrants will have it worse. Employers are not willing to invest in people, they want to know what you have achieved immediately and whether you will get customers/clients in immediately. Can an immigrant that it not even from Europe say that they can do that? Remember alot of stuff is done informally here. (not a good thing)

You said you don't agree with my comments or indeed that of the researchers, would that surprise anyone MrWalrus? because they have not concluded that Nigerians or black Africans are inherently lazy like you have previously suggested, then you would disagree. Keep wallowing in your ignorance!

I said I don't agree with some of your comments or the reports. I acknolwedged their is discrimination. You can read? I only asked, was IBEQ (Irish business employers group) questioned on this. What type of employers did they talk too?

You have consistently argued that Mr Scullys comments were taken out of context and cannot be ascribed as dearly beloved until we know exactly what service the black Africans were supposedly aggressively demanding representation for

I said it might have been taken out of context. "might". I have also said that if it was in the ordinary course of council business ,then its dearly beloved. I also said that if it was immigration representations and he agreed to help other groups, then it would be dearly beloved. Don't go gobbing off on what I have said on this thread, other threads on this site or other forums, when you are clearly not prepared to quote what I actually said. "supposedly aggressively demanding", please, even the wacist brigade did not dispute whether or not they acted in such a manner.

I have consistently said your view is nonsensical and hypocritical,

You don't even interpret or properly cite what I say in the first place. You continuously misrepresent what I actually have said. Every time you make comments and I rebut them to have little to say. You have made comments alleging what I have said like the british citizenship issue and have yet to provide the link that shows that I said that.

Of course its nonsensical when you prefer to stick to your version of what is actually said.

Hypocritical, point it out. Then you state your country of origin., You won't do that because you know that the it is highly likely then that you would have to get off your high horse, when your country is assessed.

I don't think the context of the service been sought by his black African constituents is relevant and cannot be used as a sort of caveat to justify his comments. He labelled an entire group of people as having some idiosyncratic nature of aggressiveness and rudeness and proceeded to indicate he would stop representing them

He was referring to the actual groups living in Naas that came to him not the entire Black Community. He said he refused to deal with them because of actual behaviour that he experienced. He actually said that he was referring them to other councillors. Why deal with people he simply is incapable of dealing with. He got up their noses when they reacted in the way they did, probably did not like what he had to tell them with regard to their entitlements. They did not believe that he was helping them, they got aggressive, so, let them deal with another person. The immigrant is better off. If you were dealing with customers, who would you want from your staff to deal with "difficult" people? Competent and patient person, or someone the customer does not trust?

Why should I disclose my nationality to you? It is purely irrelevant in the context of this discussion and more importantly it is absolutely none of your business.

You were the person who asked me how did I know whether you were Irish or not. Was I suppose to guess? Oh your such a tease. Why bother entering it into discussion. Yes I assumed that you are not Irish, but you left it open as to whether or not you are Irish, but it appears, thereafter that you may not be. What was your point in doing that

As you did not say you were Irish at that time, I assume that you are not. You are more than welcome to correct me. I don't care what you are.

I am not arguing about visa requirements here Walrus-stop purposely trying to confuse issues.

I mentioned it, because it is no different to the policy of preference the Irish give to other countries. I simply was seeking your opinion on visa requirements for certain countries, which you mentioned (Jamaica for example)

I hope you are no longer confused

The argument about Australia started when I gave an analogy about a German and Australian couple with an Irish child- I asked you if zambrano can apply to the Australian if he was illegal. You said it will favor the Australia because the Aussies have a history with Ireland so that would be put into consideration by officials at INIS and would lead to a positive outcome.

Not quite.Zambrano will apply because of the Aussie falls within the facts of Zambrano. The preference or the lack of difficulty was in reference to what might happen if the case was considered under Irish immigration law. Shame you refuse to read what I said.

I said to you dont you think that would be discriminatory if other non -EU nationals are treated differently and you went on a tirade of telling BS about some special relationship with US, Canada and Australia.

What is bullshit about it? Any American, Canadian or Australians on the forum? I will ask them, Compare to other non nationals on this site, and the problems they experience, how many of you get refused entry into the country, get refused residency cards, why is it that you don't need visas, how have receive deportation orders as quickly as we see other non eu's? (Take the awful messy bureuacratic crap out of the equation for one second)

You Walrus said:

How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered

Can you please explain if you can what you meant by the above comment?

You talk about hycrocrisy. You talk about illegal Irish people, who are mostly in the country that you mentioned. They have, in the past, being treated very well by America, compared to other illegals, eg Donnelly Cards etc. THey have been granted visas to enter their countries relatively easier than many other countries.

It would be pretty bad diplomacy if the Irish government started acting harsh those nationals who come to Ireland, wouldn't it, since, Irish Governments have actually gone out to set up talks with US etc politicans to get a deal for the Irish illegals. Would you agree?

The Irish government are hardly going to crack down or do anything untowrt to those nationals who come to Ireland, especially when (a) There are Irish, both legal and illegal in their countries (b) Many of their major corporations have (or were in Ireland or will) come to Ireland

If China expanded their business here to Ireland (there is some talk of a major company coming to the Midlands) and expanded in the manner that many American business have/did (eg Intel, Dell, Google), you can bet your bottom dollar, the Chinese will have it far easier than they do now, in getting to reside in Ireland. Everyone wins, (well, poor Chinese will have to put up with a horrible lifestyle and expensive living)

That is what I meant by having its bread buttered both ways. For now, African continents have not done this (for now) Money talks.

For someone whom appears to know what basic economics are, if you think this is BS, I give up , you will not survive in this country which such nativity.

By they way, this is not justifying what happens, its explaining why it happens.

Again you go on pontificating about how certain people should behave or live their lives.

Person taxed to their eyeballs are entitled to pontificate if its their money that it supporting certain lifestyles. (That includes Irish people too) You deal with hefty tax bills later in your life in Ireland, you will begin to understand.

You recently suggested that immigrants should practice family planning because Ireland cannot guarantee them residence here even if an Irish child is involved which I think is what Zambrano clarified.

It was a guilb put down to the self serving whingers who shout "second class citizenship". If they felt like that, why did they have a baby? Why did they come all the way to Ireland, a foreign land, especially to have the child, when the law was reasonably clear that they might not be protected. It is utterly self serving and a false sense of expectation that other should feel sorry for them.

Now you are saying wives of African taxi drivers are not working, I asked you to provide proof of that statement, as which other things, you fail to provide evidence and went on about some chicken and bull story about how the Irish are model citizens all over the world.

I never said that the Irish were models. You did. I can assure you, they have done a lot of harm too. Look at Politics in America, ask the Democratic Party. The Irish in the Roman Catholic Church in America and Australia for example. Your and others are the ones who are so obsessed with the Irish in other countries , that is why I responded in detail, Christ you can not follow your own argument now

. I simply pointed out their achievements and their attitudes in other countries. All you lot do is complain. Why are European countries so hostile to people from Africa and Asia? Please, I want your opinion.

As for the wife and taxi man. Again, I was talking about work permit holders and that I have no problem with them in Ireland because they work and more importantly, they were actually invited to Ireland. You went on about immigrants who work as taxi drivers, I asked you whether they came in as work permit holders, I put it to you that they don't/did not. I never actually said the wives don't work. You suggested "what about" the wives that do not work. It was your invitation to discuss these people, it was you that brought up the scenario. All I said thereafter, is, they should be working and I spoke about single mothers.

Christ, follow your line of argument will you, please. Actually, instead of assuming, simply ask, whether I said that. Clarify what I said if you are unsure of what I said or it is not clear what I said. Have I ever tried to misinterpret you or others? No. So don't do it to me.

I said that I have no problem with working Immigrants (ie work permit holders and former work permit holders - . I have no problem with working immigrants because they won't rely on State resources and won't be burdens to the state. You then some how suggest that I do have a problem with immigrants because I give out because the wife of a working immigrant does not work herself.? Is that the correct interpretation of what you are getting at? The spouses of work permit holders are not allowed to work they are on stamp 3,which is unfair and I am hardly going to criticise them, so I don't know why you brought up the wife of a taxi drive, because very few taxi drivers ever owned a work permit. Many of them got stamp 4 via Irish child, so, each parent is assessed individually. But, hey, I made it clear when you referring to the fathers, that I asked "what about single mothers?"

I brought up the Nigerian taxi driver that was killed in Dublin to highlight the severe and difficult environment in which immigrant taxi drivers operate in Ireland.

And I acknowledged that Nigerian Taxi Drivers have it difficult. Very difficult. I have witnessed the crap they get at first hand, by customers and fellow Irish Taxi drivers. But when it comes to assaults and even murders , Irish taxi drivers are in the same position and have reported to be in the same position as that man, it gets reported, but no where near the same publicity as this gentleman because of his colour (I don't complain about its publicity - I wish it did not happen in the first place) . Drunks and junkies don't discriminate on their victims.

as for whether his murder was racially motivated, I would leave that to the courts to determine.

Be honest, you were angling the race motive. I don't criticize you for doing it.

If I recollect correctly, when the Nigeria youngster was killed last year, the initial suggestions by the Gardai were that it wasn't a dearly beloved attack,

That is questionable, it was possibly race motivated, but I have heard from people around that area who say it was not race motivated (people are all experts now, but say nothing when asked to go to court to give evidence, trust me on that one, I know from my family who were victims of a crime) that it was over a girl and he was a cocky person who got mouthy (no crime in being cocky and mouthy that by the way, and it does not matter what he did , he should never have been killed or even assaulted)

as with this case the radio commentary on Joe Duffy etc is always self-defense BS. I will let the courts decide on that, so do not say it wasn't racially motivated as in a statement of FACT! It is indeed possible that it was.

Joe Duffy, lord. What you hear on that show, like the people I have spoken to about that case are as reliable as a tits on a bull.

Better off leaving the case to the courts. If it was not for the Wesely Houlihan libel, the media would have been all over this and labelling these guys dearly beloved immediately.

You had previously said you had no problem with immigrants that are working, now you say you have a problem if their spouse are not working- you are morbidly retarded if you think anyone believes you.

I was referring to work permit holders. But I answered your example in my last post anyway. See above for clarification. The sentence is confusing to be honest

"you had no problem with immigrants that are working", yes that is true

"you have a problem if their spouse are not working" What? Since when did individuality cease? Does the spouse have no life herself? Since the spouse, from the specific example that you gave will be entitled to claim social, surely they can work too? They have not lost the ability to function without the spouse have they? Irish families, both parents are expected to work, why was the immigrant no different (I say was, because everyone can't get jobs now)

You said:


am talking about father who came to Ireland AFTER 2005 Scheme was over. I have issue with those who stayed away from the mother and child for up to 2-4 years, that to me is unacceptable, and if they were Irish deserve a kicking. Most of the fathers who tried to get in after the IBC Scheme are in Court at this time.

I am asking why those fathers could not come to Ireland to join their families? Can you provide evidence of how many applications were made by fathers to join their children in Ireland? How many of those applications were granted? How long did these applications take before decisions were made?

Here is a brief list of the court cases alone. There are plenty more of those type of cases (pre zambrano. There are loads of High Court cases waiting to be ruled in light of zambrano that have yet to be heard/determined or settled. I assure you, most concern the scenerio that I have suggested. Look for "zambrano type cases"

http://www.courts.ie/__80256FFF005DDD92 ... anguage_en~

That list is only the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.courts.ie/LegalDiary.NSF/PDA ... nish=20000

"Z cases"
http://www.courts.ie/LegalDiary.NSF/PDA ... nish=45298

Pre Zambrano
I can't say how many, but I believe that there is at least 100-150 cases still in the High Court. I can try and get this properly confirmed, somehow. Give me time.


As for what happened pre zambrano, look at these. look at the facts of the cases, the lengthy 2-4 + years gap, (even eight years) just in case you thought that I was making it up. Since you don't like me putting up cases , I trust you will read them. these is only a small amount by the way, there are many more, but I think you will get the picture
Some of the following:

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~



http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

.


http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
Here is what Hedigan cited another judge saying
I concur with the following statement of Birmingham J. in G.O. & Others [2008] IEHC 190:-
“I cannot accept that it is open to individuals to arrive in the State on what is essentially a false basis, as indicated by the rejection of their claim to asylum status, and then proceed to so organise their family affairs as to frustrate the operation of the immigration system.”

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~

This is a big case! Asibor

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean

To answer your question, very very very very very very very few is any, succeeded prior to Zambrano. In fact, I would not be surprised if any succeeded, especially if they are from Africa. The point of putting up those cases, by the way was not to gloat but to show bone fide.


As for what has happened since Zambrano, well, looking at this site, when you take away the people who were on stamp 1 and 3, (and somehow, some on 2) it seems very few have got decisions. Don't know why. If people fall squarely under Zambrano ie (lived with their family at all times) then the delay is wrong!

But the cases above are not totally factually similar to Zambrano , due to the gaps, so, its likely another case may go to the CJEU, if the Irish persist, who knows?.what do you think they will try to do?

(Now, this is exactly why this thread was opened, to discuss what will happen next, you don't accept the bone fide of the thread, but others might at least look at the links and the discussion, whether yours or mine, and think for themselves)

My summary is that the Dept was culpable in not granting visas for these men to join their families. A lot of them had to come to Ireland illegally after applications to join their families had been refused several times. So do not be disingenuous and say those men abandoned their families- in most cases they were not given the opportunity by your mates in TIPP and Dublin..

How were they culpable? (not an attack, its an honest question, requiring an non bitichy answer) THis new right was only created/recognised in March 2011. Dercei justified their actions in some limited cases. (limited)

Moving forward, and dealing with what you said, or appeared to have said,

You are justifying their actions, ie entering illegally?

1. Why did so many take so long to come over, not all of them were poor and many could afford tickets. Some had business and jobs. Not everyone in these countries are utterly poor or live in huts

2. THe IBC 05 Scheme clearly stated that there was no right to family reunification, why didn't the fathers come over and sneak in before the deadline?, thus having no problems now

I will not take the approach that you have taken towards my comments and try and misinterpret, so instead I will ask you to clarify.

1. Does your statement justify their actions by making false asylum claims, telling lies about their countries (look all of the links above involved asylum) and in effect, cost this State millions in free legal aid to provide legal services to these people who decide to appeal and some who went ahead with judicial review of that decision?

2. If so, how can you justify it?

3. If so, would you advocate that these people, if they do now get status, undertake to repay every penny that was spent on them by this State during their asylum case.

4. What part of the clear warning under the IBC scheme did they not understand?

5. Do you want me to dig out the cases, that show in the facts of the case that mothers neglected to mention in their asylum case that she was in a relationship or married or where they neglected to put the fathers name on the birth cert? (Not every case, a few)

Obviously that does not apply to those who came in on visas.

Can you please clarify whether you are justifying and accepting or defending people who breach immigration laws.

If so, do you not understand why there is so much hostility towards these people?

If so, do you now understand what I mean, when I say, they have had it easier than someone who had to apply and renew work permits?





I am accusing you of nothing, I am asking you, you may very well be just stating fact (or stating the bleeding obvious). I have little or no confidence that you will answer. Please prove me wrong

What do work permit and former work permit holders think?

Instead of risking deportation, why didn't they apply for residency and wait in their countries first. That what work permit holders had to do.

[walrusgumble]

lol you gonna look for where the Anti-immigrants criticized the British?Thought you knew him better,He edits most of his comment after seeing his error,so plz do not bother.I already knew his kind of person when Zambrano ruling came out.Lil kids can easily point out who Mr wals is,by reading his posts.I think silence is the best answer.Mr wals take a look at our arguments on Zambrano,its really funny you dont have problem with Zambrano anymore.Whats your aim?be bold enough to say it will ye?

Ah good man, another unfounded comment to make. Have you been reading at all? No Morris has not

I made it clear that the criticism of British citizenship refers to the short length of time it take to process. Go and look for the post why don't you like a good man. You will probably find that the said post was not even edited.

Sure, your not one for making comments that can be proven to be wrong. How about you now going back and addressing the many comments on this very thread that you have stated that I have meant to have said. Its funny, where I pointed out the error of your ways, you just skipped along to the next gross inaccuracy. Would you just go anyway and cease trolling.

Please do not bother, no, just go ahead and make the comment anyway, feck the repercussions. Just use the race card to get out of a sticky situation. fair play to ya morris, you have done well so far.

Actually, while your act it Morris, point out these posts that have been edited to such an extent that they have changed utterly.

Little kids, ah morris, don't be putting yourself down.

Where do you get the silly notion that I don't have a problem with Zambrano? I have a huge problem with it. But it no point getting hissy about it anymore because it won't greatly effect Ireland or Europe , numbers wise and the last two cases have slammed the door on "reverse discrimination", for now.

Aim? Simply responding to incorrect comments made by the likes of your good self.

Good luck dear boy, have a good evening

[walrusgumble]

I observed two things about you.
Anyone that does not support your view,you conclude he/she is not Irish and tend to know about their country of Origin,now am saying why dont you,Mr wals post your full names,D.O.B and location,I know you from Ireland but where?U like that ehh?Tho you mentioned the below statement to the moderator but i think you are the person actually doing that (posting irrelevant stuff to increase your posts)Are you doing it to show off or become a moderator yourself?hehe nice dream

You could actually read what is said once in a while. Its remarkable listening to these powerful statements of what should and should not be done or what rights one has, when all I simply say is, your not Irish, you don't have a vote r a voice on these issues, yet. When ye do, then ye can shout platitudes to your hearts desire.

Why would I provide my details to you? You have never disclosed anything. you always avoid it. What would you need with this information anyway? threats? If Administrators want them let them ask.

To become a moderator. I think we can all agree that the day of my suitability to be a moderator went about 6 months after joining the site. God forbid demanding accountability.

You stop commenting, I will continue back to the discussion on Dercei. You have not even uttered a word on this case by the way. Why are you on this thread?

Nice dreams to you darling

[Morrisj]

Stop giving out like a baby,there is no point discussing Zambrano/Dereci with you,cos its clear your hatred for immigrants specially the Nigerians will never end.I kindly advise everyone to ignore your post except your backbone Mönife who likes posting weird comments to back you up.
How did you work for the Justice,I thought it was all about the grammar but its worse than that.
(Requiring ''an'' non bitchy..)Did you even attend High School,This is unbelievable.Monife what do have to say?Its a shame tho

[Morrisj]

God forbid you demand accountability?I thought you said there is no God,its just a figment of imagination?the only reason am not going into this,is because of the capital ''G'' you used this time.Shows much respect when comparing God to other gods like yourself and other lunatics of your kind.I cease further discussion with you unless its an oral discussion(face to face)But that would be like a discussion between the wise and the foolish,so there is no point,wonder what you look like,are you human?

[Regulator56]

Walrus,


Your description of cronyism and nepotism is not restricted to Ireland, most countries have this problem as well but maybe perhaps it is more accentuated in Ireland because the country while been a small open economy still exhibits insular behavior. The case here is the systematic discrimination against immigrants when it comes to recruitment.

You mention an interesting point about IBE(C), which represents private sector employers in Ireland, what exactly would you recommend the ESRI say to IBEC? The job of researchers is provide facts about situations and offer recommendations. It is the job of the government to consider this recommendations and formulate policy to address the problems identified. Of course I am not advocating for a US style employee quota for companies/firms that meet a certain threshold. Since the report came out in 2009, nothing has been done to address the problem, you mention IBEC, what about the public sector that you are familiar with? If a similar research is carried out I would wager the situation there would even be more discriminatory. You know your way around getting information in the public domain, I would have got this information myself but unfortunately I have to pay to get information via the Freedom of Information ACT.



My arguement is that people including yourself are very quick to vilify immigrants without having a balanced perspective or a broad view as to the massive constraints they face in Ireland. I am not some left wing or liberal nutter, but it is a fact that a lot of immigrants, well the ones I know are definitely not happy sitting on their asses getting €200 a week, a lot are far more ambitious and forward thinking than you would like to imagine.


You said:


He was referring to the actual groups living in Naas that came to him not the entire Black Community. He said he refused to deal with them because of actual behavior that he experienced. He actually said that he was referring them to other Councillors. Why deal with people he simply is incapable of dealing with. He got up their noses when they reacted in the way they did, probably did not like what he had to tell them with regard to their entitlements. They did not believe that he was helping them, they got aggressive, so, let them deal with another person. The immigrant is better off. If you were dealing with customers, who would you want from your staff to deal with "difficult" people? Competent and patient person, or someone the customer does not trust?


Mr Walrus, his behavior and comments were dearly beloved and discriminatory- end of! No amount of spin or explanation can justify it. So because he so say (remember there is no particular evidence to support his comments) had problems with some black Africans, so he decided to generalize and stop making representations on behalf of all black Africans that reside in Naas. You cannot necessarily extrapolate this to mainstream customer service- this is an elected official that should provide services to all residents of Naas irrespective of race.


I still do not understand your position on my analogy- please a simple Yes or No answer, would an Australian spouse of a German qualify for Zambrano if they had an Irish child?

As for your commentary on the symbiotic relationship between the US/Canada/ Australia and Ireland, I found it quite interesting- I genuinely lma o! It is simplistic, rudimentary and not wholly accurate. I am not totally discounting your assertions but there were generally hyperbolic. Trust me, Irish citizens are deported from the US, Canada and Australia, it might not make the headlines but it happens often.


Your explanation about your so called respects for immigrants with work permit is just frustrating tbh. Does it matter the kind of permission a worker has? As long as these Taxi drivers are working, that is all. You are just been ridiculously pedantic by hammering on the kind of permit they have- residence permit/work permit- i cant be bothered.

You said:

That is questionable, it was possibly race motivated, but I have heard from people around that area who say it was not race motivated (people are all experts now, but say nothing when asked to go to court to give evidence, trust me on that one, I know from my family who were victims of a crime) that it was over a girl and he was a cocky person who got mouthy (no crime in being cocky and mouthy that by the way, and it does not matter what he did , he should never have been killed or even assaulted)



You see that is one problem that is rife in Ireland, the refusal to believe that beloved is a big problem in the country. Every incidence like this generates all sorts of stories to justify actions of intolerant people. You like bringing up other countries, but the problem is Ireland is that it a top-to bottom issue. On all your numerous visits to courts.ie, can you provide links to cases of beloved against immigrants? or are you suggesting people do not report? Institutionally, there is no commitment whatsoever to address the problem. You said yourself that the Scully affair would be forgotten soon, why? because to the society, it is not really an issue. That is why 80% of the messages he got were ones of support including from Gardai, nurses and taxi drivers.

Your list of court cases was equally interesting, I acknowledge that some asylum cases sounded contrived but you are not addressing the fundamentals I have raised. I will answer the questions you asked me but I think you missed my point.

A lot of these fathers applied for visas to come to Ireland to join their families but were refused visas repeatedly by the State- that is a FACT! I am saying to you that you can go to INIS and ask that how many of these fathers made attempts to get visas to come to Ireland? How many were issued? that is the premise of my arguement Walrus.

Your Questions;

1. Why did so many take so long to come over, not all of them were poor and many could afford tickets. Some had business and jobs. Not everyone in these countries are utterly poor or live in huts

2. THe IBC 05 Scheme clearly stated that there was no right to family reunification, why didn't the fathers come over and sneak in before the deadline?, thus having no problems now

I will not take the approach that you have taken towards my comments and try and misinterpret, so instead I will ask you to clarify.

1. Does your statement justify their actions by making false asylum claims, telling lies about their countries (look all of the links above involved asylum) and in effect, cost this State millions in free legal aid to provide legal services to these people who decide to appeal and some who went ahead with judicial review of that decision?

2. If so, how can you justify it?

3. If so, would you advocate that these people, if they do now get status, undertake to repay every penny that was spent on them by this State during their asylum case.

4. What part of the clear warning under the IBC scheme did they not understand?

5. Do you want me to dig out the cases, that show in the facts of the case that mothers neglected to mention in their asylum case that she was in a relationship or married or where they neglected to put the fathers name on the birth cert? (Not every case, a few)

Obviously that does not apply to those who came in on visas.

Can you please clarify whether you are justifying and accepting or defending people who breach immigration laws.

If so, do you not understand why there is so much hostility towards these people?

If so, do you now understand what I mean, when I say, they have had it easier than someone who had to apply and renew work permits?


Walrus, I would never advocate for any one to purposely break immigration laws, that is unacceptable, however I read some of the cases on the links you gave. The state's arguement was that while they acknowledge the right of the Irish child, more emphasis should be placed on common good, which is to prevent them from having both parents together.

Your question about why they didnt come earlier as they could afford tickets is contradictory or an attempt to be disingenoeous. You do know that most of them would have needed visas and you do know you cant buy visas. an application has to be made at the irish embassy in their respective countries. I am asking you that did the dept issue visas to these fathers when they requested to join their families? If not, the dept cannot use their absence as an excuse.

Your question on asylum is straight forward. Proper investigations should be carried out and any dubious claims should be rejected, but Walrus what is the number of asylum seekers in Ireland from 2009-date? My understanding, this has significantly reduced. Reports suggest that Ireland has the toughest asylum system in the EU, so what are you talking about?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfojojmhkfkf/rss2/

My view on your rant about legal fees is that the state knows that there is a possibility that applicants would pursue further legal channels to address their cases, it is the same in all EU countries, why should it be different in Ireland? In relation to people with Irish born children, I think that apart the fact they are not obligated to repay the state a farthing, I am of the opinion that some of them should actually sue the state for compensation for disrupting their family lives. Why do i say this? I agree with you that maybe Ireland should have changed their citizenship laws to avoid a situation where it was allegedly abused by immigrants but that is a case of hindsight and basically history. the reality is that the state cannot use people as scapegoats for their own oversight- the state cannot create a situation where Irish children can in fact be constructively deported from the country. If you look at the issue critically, the case of the Nigerian woman with Irish spouse and child is just ridiculous, how could the dept insist she had to go in that situation and you came here and said the dept would have had a case if dereci judgement had been made then. While trying to keep control of borders, the dept has to use a bit of common sense in making decisions, it is the lack of it that they now have over 150 cases or more in the high court on the basis of Irish born children- it doesnt make sense Walrus.

[walrusgumble]

Walrus,


Your description of cronyism and nepotism is not restricted to Ireland, most countries have this problem as well but maybe perhaps it is more accentuated in Ireland because the country while been a small open economy still exhibits insular behavior. The case here is the systematic discrimination against immigrants when it comes to recruitment.

I can only talk about this country. But cronyism and nepotism is rife, alot of the times, so, if Irish people have it hard, immigrants will have it harder. No argument against your assessment on why it is the case. It is also rife among the Irish in foreign lands, that is why many got up the ladder, they stuck together, its partly way they were distrusted in America and the UK , especially in Politics.

I never disputed that there is misgivings about the immigrant's ability, and yes, they definitely have it harder in recruitment of jobs that fit their ability. Irish people were qualified doctors and teachers in Ireland in the 1970'-1980's but it did not always mean that they got to do that line of work when they went abroad. Some had to do crappy jobs, some returned home. It is definitely no different for the immigrants that came here to Ireland.

You mention an interesting point about IBE(C), which represents private sector employers in Ireland, what exactly would you recommend the ESRI say to IBEC?

Fair point. But it would be worth asking them why this is a problem. Yes they will give spin, maybe deny it. But I think there might be more to it. On a positive level, it may expose the employers and force IBEC to undertake to implement more positive polices. "might".

The job of researchers is provide facts about situations and offer recommendations. It is the job of the government to consider this recommendations and formulate policy to address the problems identified.

Yes, but little gets done in Ireland without the backing or support of interest groups like IBEQ or SPITU (for the workers) or the relevant Professional Agencies (for doctors, lawyers etc). The real question is, do the government want to do it, or do they want to sweep it under the carpet?

Of course I am not advocating for a US style employee quota for companies/firms that meet a certain threshold. Since the report came out in 2009, nothing has been done to address the problem, you mention IBEC, what about the public sector that you are familiar with?

Ah, the public sector. Like all State agencies in most countries in the EU, they are protective over those posts. Spouting out stuff like due to national security etc they must be reserved for the nationals and seek to rely on Article 45(4) TFEU (or subsection 3, I forget) on Public Service. THe EU Commission are trying to stamp that down. Googling the Commission REports for this. (CJEU are very very very weary of this provision)

If a similar research is carried out I would wager the situation there would even be more discriminatory.

You would have a very safe bet, especially now.

You know your way around getting information in the public domain, I would have got this information myself but unfortunately I have to pay to get information via the Freedom of Information ACT.

You might at least now accept some bone fide on my part, and not this nonsense of being a rabid hate monger. Most of the information draws from actual experience, a lot of cynicism, but more importantly, nearly all the information can actually be found on the net! You need little in the way of FOI.

My arguement is that people including yourself are very quick to vilify immigrants without having a balanced perspective or a broad view as to the massive constraints they face in Ireland.

Again, I have no issue with most immigrants. I do have an issue with those you wrongly claimed for asylum, as it cost the State millions in tax payers money (both yours and mine) It has made Irish people horrendously cynical of certain countries. Because, from my experience of Nigerians in England, not all were asylum seekers, many in England were big business people and got into England the correct way.

I am not some left wing or liberal nutter, but it is a fact that a lot of immigrants, well the ones I know are definitely not happy sitting on their asses getting €200 a week, a lot are far more ambitious and forward thinking than you would like to imagine.

I accept that. Most African taxi drivers are taxi drivers because they could not get work in the first place. At least they are trying. And yes, no one wants to be a cleaner or a chip shop attendant for the rest of their lives. (In Ireland)

But it does not justify some of the things that they did.


[/QUOTE]
You said:


He was referring to the actual groups living in Naas that came to him not the entire Black Community. He said he refused to deal with them because of actual behavior that he experienced. He actually said that he was referring them to other Councillors. Why deal with people he simply is incapable of dealing with. He got up their noses when they reacted in the way they did, probably did not like what he had to tell them with regard to their entitlements. They did not believe that he was helping them, they got aggressive, so, let them deal with another person. The immigrant is better off. If you were dealing with customers, who would you want from your staff to deal with "difficult" people? Competent and patient person, or someone the customer does not trust?

I still do not understand your position on my analogy- please a simple Yes or No answer, would an Australian spouse of a German qualify for Zambrano if they had an Irish child?

Sticking to the point, and thus the whole point of this thread (to talk about examples like yours)

It should apply Zambrano.

But, I foresee someone like Ireland trying to limit it, whether its justified , that is what we are here to talk about. There is actual free movement, so Zambrano should be there. I am aware of rumours that the department think it does not apply (more cases!)

In my opinion, in a case like this, they will look, first, at whether the German complies with the Directive, then all bets are off, continue on as per Metock. Since your asking, it seems logical, that its possible the German is not exercising or no longer their Treaty Rights in Ireland. That is an issue. Looking at cases like Ibrahim and Teixeria (cases involving similar situations but the EU child was in school) , there appears no real good reason that a child's position can't be then considered.

As for your commentary on the symbiotic relationship between the US/Canada/ Australia and Ireland, I found it quite interesting- I genuinely lma o! It is simplistic, rudimentary and not wholly accurate. I am not totally discounting your assertions but there were generally hyperbolic. Trust me, Irish citizens are deported from the US, Canada and Australia, it might not make the headlines but it happens often.

I never said that Irish were never deported. Point out where I said they avoided deportation? Australians are taking a non sense approach now on everyone. During George Bush's time things were harder. I am talking about the level of ease compared to OTHER IMMIGRANTS.

Your explanation about your so called respects for immigrants with work permit is just frustrating tbh. Does it matter the kind of permission a worker has? As long as these Taxi drivers are working, that is all. You are just been ridiculously pedantic by hammering on the kind of permit they have- residence permit/work permit- i cant be bothered.

It was relevant because you started to talk about a different class of immigrant when we spoke about working immigrants. The work permit holders were invited to Ireland, the others, many via IBC (I am excluding EU people and Declared Refugees - no issue ) were not.

But there is no point whinging about the latter now. They are here, and they are working. That is good

You said:

That is questionable, it was possibly race motivated, but I have heard from people around that area who say it was not race motivated (people are all experts now, but say nothing when asked to go to court to give evidence, trust me on that one, I know from my family who were victims of a crime) that it was over a girl and he was a cocky person who got mouthy (no crime in being cocky and mouthy that by the way, and it does not matter what he did , he should never have been killed or even assaulted)



You see that is one problem that is rife in Ireland, the refusal to believe that beloved is a big problem in the country. Every incidence like this generates all sorts of stories to justify actions of intolerant people. You like bringing up other countries, but the problem is Ireland is that it a top-to bottom issue.

Where did I bring up other countries when discussing the attacks on the taxi driver and the young fella. The statement that you cited, actually pointed out that it was questionable that the Gardai were correct to say that the attack on the young fella was not race motivated. I believe, despite hearing the contrary, it very well might have been.

On all your numerous visits to courts.ie, can you provide links to cases of beloved against immigrants?

Very few Criminal Laws cases are reported, bar the ones on points of law. So, it will be hard.I would not know where to look. You will have to look at what the newspapers say.

or are you suggesting people do not report? Institutionally, there is no commitment whatsoever to address the problem.

If there is a lack of assistance, I don't blame them for not reporting.

You said yourself that the Scully affair would be forgotten soon, why?

You need to be a murderer (and even then who knows) to loose your seat in Ireland. Haughey, Lowry, Jackie Healy Rae. I could keep going.

Why? I have no doubt there will be people in Naas who will back him, sure "Isn't he a lovely fella, he meant no harm" the locals might say.

because to the society, it is not really an issue. That is why 80% of the messages he got were ones of support including from Gardai, nurses and taxi drivers.

Probably

Your list of court cases was equally interesting, I acknowledge that some asylum cases sounded contrived but you are not addressing the fundamentals I have raised. I will answer the questions you asked me but I think you missed my point.

The point of the links was to show evidence and bone fides. My answers to your question was, Pre Zambrano, very few got residency. Post Zambrano, it remains to be seen. For some reason or other, there are still cases in Court relying on Zambrano.

The questions that I asked you are a slightly separate matter on the basis of what you said latter.

A lot of these fathers applied for visas to come to Ireland to join their families but were refused visas repeatedly by the State- that is a FACT!

Very few of the reported cases pointed that out. But I take your word for it, that still does not justify false asylum cases to get around the visa refusals.

I am saying to you that you can go to INIS and ask that how many of these fathers made attempts to get visas to come to Ireland? How many were issued? that is the premise of my arguement Walrus.

Made attempts on visa, ah, ok, well, the department of justice INIS website will at least give you the stats on visa applications and refusals. Check them out www.inis.gov.ie

[walrusgumble]

Walrus, I would never advocate for any one to purposely break immigration laws, that is unacceptable, however I read some of the cases on the links you gave. The state's arguement was that while they acknowledge the right of the Irish child, more emphasis should be placed on common good, which is to prevent them from having both parents together.

That is essentially the basis of the infamous Lobe case.

Your question about why they didnt come earlier as they could afford tickets is contradictory or an attempt to be disingenoeous.

You do know that most of them would have needed visas and you do know you cant buy visas. an application has to be made at the irish embassy in their respective countries. I am asking you that did the dept issue visas to these fathers when they requested to join their families? If not, the dept cannot use their absence as an excuse.

No it is not contradictory, considering the finally applied for asylum when they came, there was nothing stopping them from coming to Ireland with the mother and apply for asylum then. Few of these women applied for visas before coming over. Many fathers did that and that's why they got their status under the IBC Scheme.

To answer your question, the department would likely have refused the visas because the department knew that they would overstay and because there was no legal entitlement, under Irish law too family reunification.

Your question on asylum is straight forward. Proper investigations should be carried out and any dubious claims should be rejected,

International law prevents Ireland from refusing them entry into Ireland to make the application, it also prevents the State to refuse the facility of an appeal. It is expected to provide legal assistance also. The Greeks and Italians are in the dock in Europe over their failure to comply with the laws on its treatment of asylum seekers.

cases that are dubious are rejected, that is most of them.

but Walrus what is the number of asylum seekers in Ireland from 2009-date? My understanding, this has significantly reduced. Reports suggest that Ireland has the toughest asylum system in the EU, so what are you talking about?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfojojmhkfkf/rss2/

In the context of our discussion of these fathers, the relevant years from the cases in the courts are 2000-2008ish. Not 2009

The link too the actual stats on asylum, from ORAC, were provided in my post when I was responding to Obie. Go check it out

What am I talking about? Even if 2009 was relevant there are still far too many frivolous cases costing the state.

My view on your rant about legal fees is that the state knows that there is a possibility that applicants would pursue further legal channels to address their cases, it is the same in all EU countries, why should it be different in Ireland?

Rant on legal fees. That is seriously disengenious and any hostility by Irish people is fully justified if people take such a dismissive stance. You now know why Member States adopt a payback attitude in its strict immigration rules to these people.

Check out the stats on each member states asylum application figures throughout Europe for the past decade. For the size of this country and geographical location Ireland is disproportionate

In relation to people with Irish born children, I think that apart the fact they are not obligated to repay the state a farthing,

I was being glib. Don't take that comment seriously.

I am of the opinion that some of them should actually sue the state for compensation for disrupting their family lives.

Why do i say this? I agree with you that maybe Ireland should have changed their citizenship laws to avoid a situation where it was allegedly abused by immigrants but that is a case of hindsight and basically history. the reality is that the state cannot use people as scapegoats for their own oversight- the state cannot create a situation where Irish children can in fact be constructively deported from the country.

The Supreme Court, twice in the 1980's and in 2003 suggests different. Scapegoats? No scapegoats, they simply closed the loophole.

If you look at the issue critically, the case of the Nigerian woman with Irish spouse and child is just ridiculous, how could the dept insist she had to go in that situation

Why is it ridiculous? She had no permission to be in the State in the first place. Did she sign on at the GNIB when required? very few do. Maybe Ireland should have taken the approach of the other member states and arrest them

and you came here and said the dept would have had a case if dereci judgement had been made then.

Not "then", now. Dercei helps now. But, again, domestic law might take a different approach. Its all up to the Minister of the day

[IQU]

thanks god debate is over

[walrusgumble]

thanks god debate is over

It does not have to be over. Just nonsense from people like Morris has stopped. Any further discussion, including you, outside this case or any other similar case is not welcome. You can always just ignore it.

[Regulator56]

Walrus...

You said:

To answer your question, the department would likely have refused the visas because the department knew that they would overstay and because there was no legal entitlement, under Irish law too family reunification.

It is not a case of probability that the department refused visa applications made by fathers between 2000- 2009. The department was well aware that these applicants had Irish born children in the state but still refused them entry. Your explanation is that they knew they would overstay because there were not entitled under the law to join their family. I am not too sure about the validity of your comment, but if it is indeed true that there are no provisions for family reunification in the Irish immigration law- why is that the case? Isn't that inhuman even at the basic level to deny legal residents and citizens of Ireland to right to have their family members join them?

You said:


Rant on legal fees. That is seriously disingenuous and any hostility by Irish people is fully justified if people take such a dismissive stance. You now know why Member States adopt a payback attitude in its strict immigration rules to these people.

Check out the stats on each member states asylum application figures throughout Europe for the past decade. For the size of this country and geographical location Ireland is disproportionate



I was not been dismissive at all, you rightly acknowledged that Ireland is obligated under International law to give a fair hearing to asylum cases and give opportunity for review of refused applications. Walrus, this process is costly but you are aware that Ireland gets funds from the EU and the UNHCR to help with this costs so do not make it sound as if the taxpayers bear all the cost. It is an international obligation just like the reconstruction of Europe after the second world war via the US marshall plan was.

Every country is free to have whatever immigration policy they deem fit but they have to formulate and implement policies that are not discriminatory. The Zambrano case was clear, it says that Non-EU parents of EU children living in their own country should have the right to live and work in that country.

The member states should accept this and move on, not only is it common sensical to have parents of EU children live with them, it is their fundamental human right. You have been a proponent of Irish immigration who still wants to exclude some parents from this basic right, what I find senseless is the member states are in control of their citizenship laws so in the coming years, only very few people would actually benefit from the Zambrano law.

Your second point on Ireland having a disproportionate number of asylum seekers is a common misconception by nationalist ideologues and people with an anti-immigration stance. Ireland is not in the top 8 of countries with highest number of asylum seekers relative to population size, Malta has received more asylum seekers and refugees than Ireland and they have a similar population .


I resent the way you are able to make a determination that most asylum cases are bogus or dubious. You cannot have a blanket approach to such issues, that is unprofessional and if that it is the approach at INIS, then that is problematic and they could be denying genuine asylum seekers/refugees because of their perception bias.