What is your point? Irish law made in clear that there was no automatic right to stay in Ireland or come to Ireland just because a member of your family is Irish. That was made clear regarding spouses in the 1980's and parents of Irish Child in 2003.Regulator56 wrote: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.
Irish law , as espoused on a continuous basis is that no one has a given automatic right to reside. Even if you are an EU national, in order to rely upon EU law, you must comply with EU law.
You are still ignoring the fact that they could have come with their partner (mother of child) when she came , without visa, and applied for asylum. Some of the fathers did.
It was clear the visa refusals was a sign that they were not welcome in the first place. Only skilled non EU people were required. Its not a visa you apply for first, its a work permit. (then apply for visa)
There are visas for business, and holiday visas. These fathers were not coming for holiday but to reunite with family. Thus, overstaying. The application for family reunification have been made while the father remained in their home country .
Please end this nonsense. " I am not too sure". You don't know. My th eway, its not my explanation, its the departments. And by the way I can easily flood this thread with more High Court cases containing facts that would completely justify the Department's suspicion of overstaying.Regulator56 wrote: 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
And no, there was no entitlement and there never was any automatic entitlement , even with Fajunonu and later Dimbo. Lobe still has relevance. Please, go to bailii.org and read those cases. I refuse to go any further in this discussion without people like your good self, at least having a solid understanding of these cases.
While you are at it, you might as well enlighten us on this. Or are you sticking to the EU Law - Zambrano basis?
Even Zambrano might not be willing to overstretch the position where a father had been absent for 3-8 years of the child's life. That is another question to ask Europe, especially if the other parent, a NON EU, got status, thus, the child is not genuinely deprived of residency if the father is required to leave. I'd imagine, the Irish, whether, rightly or wrongly will try this stunt.
High Court and Supreme Court have made the position on family reunification very clear well more than 10 times in the past 20 years.Regulator56 wrote: , but if it is indeed true that there are no provisions for family reunification in the Irish immigration law- why is that the case?
Immigration policy is administrative. This allows for flexibility and for the Minister of the day to deal with any new unexpected matters. Its a handy way of not letting certain industries getting a heads up and learning how to get round written legislation. To be fair, I suppose, its time that it was in legislation. But even then, it will only continue to be status quo.
Many don't see that these children fairly and honorably got Irish Citizenship in the first place. That is reality and it was a driving force for people to change the citizenship laws. I accept in certain basis its a bit of an ignorant view.Regulator56 wrote: 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?
Is it inhuman?
No, if ECHR accept it can happen why shouldn't Ireland. THe family can always go elsewhere (remember the children are dual citizens) if they really are that concerned about living together.
Just to make clear I was not pointing the finger saying, ah, you think the behavior of wasting tax payers money is fully acceptable. I used the word "if".Regulator56 wrote: 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.
As for funds from EU and UNCHR, that does not make a blind bit of difference. That money could go elsewhere. As for the money that comes in, I would strongly question where such funds go. Where is the money that helps Ireland pay for the High Court and Supreme Court crap cases, the deportations. Whatever money EU and UNHCR does give, it does not even come close to an arse's roar of what Irish Citizens and residences have to see being thrown down the drain.
We and Europe don't have an obligation to take in every person that thinks they want to come to Europe, especially under the FALSE guise of political asylum . Not every country in Africa is war thorn or completely ungovernable. We all know that refugee camps are available and that asylum is given. So why don't they go there? Many of the less well off have to go there. There is nothing that can be done about this, so move on,I guess.
you can say what you like, but it does not take away the fact that work permit and visas are in place to only take in vetted and skilled and wanted immigrants. The country can only take so many people and will only want people they need for a certain requirement .Any one else has no rights. They they know it . No matter what you say, you can't justify false asylum cases which occurred in many of these cases.Regulator56 wrote: Every country is free to have whatever immigration policy they deem fit but they have to formulate and implement policies that are not discriminatory.
This is not discriminatory
What's the immigration policy of your country?
Zambrano, both parents lived with the child from day 1.Regulator56 wrote:
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.
Go elsewhere then, and not try to revise what EU law was meant to be all about.Regulator56 wrote: You have been a proponent of Irish immigration who still wants to exclude some parents from this basic right
That is potentially true, Zambrano will only benefit a few, hence part of the reason for its limitation. But, there is still a sizeable figure already here.Regulator56 wrote: , 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.
However, there is nothing stopping a failed asylum seeker knocking up a legal EU or NON EU person (the latter being here for more than 3 years, legally)
Really? Provide your evidence for that an not fancy words. I have produced the Irish figures, give me time and I will get the British, French etc .Regulator56 wrote:
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.
Which is closer to Africa, Malta or Ireland? It makes sense that Malta gets more. Is Malta considered as Western Europe? No. Link to the top 10 by th e way comes from where?Regulator56 wrote: 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 .
If you ever read the transcripts or even the Court cases you would take the same attitude. Most are bogus. The stats from other countries don't lie either.Regulator56 wrote: I resent the way you are able to make a determination that most asylum cases are bogus or dubious.
Get your facts right! Its the decisions of the ORAC and RAT. The Minister at leave to remain stage, is hardly going to over rule their decisions if the High Court believed that they were safe or the applicant did not bring a High Court Case.Regulator56 wrote: You cannot have a blanket approach to such issues, that is unprofessional and if that it is the approach at INIS
What do you make of the regular UK Home Office COI Reports AND Home Office Guideline Reports (go to their website you can find them, or long way round www.ecoi.net) Canadians and Australians have similar reports. These guideline reports (taking credibility of an individual aside) deal with the very common and often word for word identical claims made from applicants of the common countries.
The common ground for refusal, aside from lack of COI to support someone's individual case, is consistency of the story given,. If a person is incapable of giving a consistent story between Interview and Questionnaire and Consistent with Country of Origin Information, its very hard to accept a person's case, especially without documents or verified documents. Case law contains summary of facts dealing with political applicants who when asked for basic details of the party that they allegedly seek to be a member of, they get it oh so wrong.
You should not be acting in such a blanket manner in defending matters that you simply don't have the details too. It does not help either when you want people on WRITTEN RECORD accepting that there was nothing wrong with their country but they simply wanted to be with family. What about people claiming to be from a certain place and who don't speak the language expect from a member of the common national, tribe,ethnic group? or basic geography of their own area?
Fair enough, there are cases involving places like Afghanistan and Iraq and even Somalia. But then, the asylum definition is narrow. They might/should have luck in leave to remain. But, for most part, these are not the groups that are well known in Ireland are they. How many, of the few Afghans and Iraqi's have been sent home?
Genuine asylum seekers will always get in. There is certainly no crisis in Western Africa (where most cases are from) that merits a case of persecution. If not, leave to remain.Regulator56 wrote: then that is problematic and they could be denying genuine asylum seekers/refugees because of their perception bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, I fully accept and agree that you have a right to reply and a right to respond to anything that I have said, and fair play for addressing what was put to you. But we are really going off topic in certain aspects and some people don't like what I have to say, so, stick to Dercei. I am happy to continue with the asylum issue elsewhere, but not here on this thread
There are two examples that we have noticed that maybe questioned and might need assessment
EU CItizen and NON EU Parent of Irish Child; What happens if EU person no longer complies with Article 6-7 and 12-17 of Directive 2004 EC (this will be hard to have failed, to be fair, but it happens), can they seek similar attitude in cases like Teixeria/Ibrahaim (but the child is not in school)?
And
NON EU PArents of Irish Child, the father, being absent from the child's life at birth and a gap of 1-5-8 years or so and in another place, while the mother has legal status