Link to Dereci Judgment

[walrusgumble]

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.

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.

, but if it is indeed true that there are no provisions for family reunification in the Irish immigration law- why is that the case?

High Court and Supreme Court have made the position on family reunification very clear well more than 10 times in the past 20 years.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Every country is free to have whatever immigration policy they deem fit but they have to formulate and implement policies that are not discriminatory.

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.

This is not discriminatory

What's the immigration policy of your country?

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.

Zambrano, both parents lived with the child from day 1.

You have been a proponent of Irish immigration who still wants to exclude some parents from this basic right

Go elsewhere then, and not try to revise what EU law was meant to be all about.

, 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.

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.

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)

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.

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 .

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 .

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?

I resent the way you are able to make a determination that most asylum cases are bogus or dubious.

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.

You cannot have a blanket approach to such issues, that is unprofessional and if that it is the approach at INIS

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.

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?

then that is problematic and they could be denying genuine asylum seekers/refugees because of their perception bias.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Regulator56]

Walrus.....



You said:

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.


My point is that Ireland not having a mechanism in place to facilitate entry for immediate family members of Irish citizens is discriminatory. I am not suggesting a carte blanche scenerio for family members of Irish citizens to join them in Ireland but like the EU, immediate family members like spouses, fathers/mothers should enjoy that right. That is my opinion which you would find distasteful as usual.

You further stated that:

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.



That is a very pathetic comment and it shows how conceited you are. You must believe in your sub-conscious that these people can easily transport themselves enmasse to Dublin airport. Just because some fathers came with their wives does not mean the other fathers that did not try. Have you considered the possibility or indeed the probability they did try unsuccessfully to accompany their wives? Your point is moot because they did enter the country to seek asylum or came in illegally, explanations for which I provided earlier on in the thread.

They were refused visas to join their Irish children and you said that is an indication that they were not welcome in the first place and yet part of the arguement that INIS is basing the refusal to grant them residency in the country is because they have not been in the child's life? isnt that contradictory in the sense that they were not afforded that opportunity in the first place?


You said:

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.

Untrue. My point was that why would INIS refuse them on the basis that they would overstay their visas when it was clear they were joining their families? doesn't make sense.

In relation to your accusation that I am deviating from Zambrano, you are essentially to blame for that, you consistently try to obfuscate by bringing up irrelevancies and bringing up national policy that are not germane to the topic.


You claim:

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.

It is good that you have acknowledged the failure to have legislation is damning. There is no clarity, coherence and the system is basically archaic . In most developed countries, there are formulated policy constructs in place and usually widely available to the public, these policies are explanatory, concise and contain guidelines by which decisions are made.

In Ireland, every immigration applicant is at the mercy of the deciding officer who would make a decision based on parameters not entirely clear to either themselves or more relevantly the applicant.

You postulated that:

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.


I pointed out the fact that Ireland gets funds from both the EU and UNCHR to negate your point that the Irish tax payers were solely responsible for the costs. Your suggestion was disingenious and not depicting an accurate picture. The fact is the Irish government is paid to process asylum requests, the successful applicants then become the responsibilty of the state.


You inquired?:

What's the immigration policy of your country?


I would end this once and for all and in this case I would use some unparliamentary language. Absolutely none of your bloody business, you started a thread on how Zambrano has been limited by Dereci and I decided to take you up on your anti-immigrant stance. If you want to know how my country deals with immigration/immigrants? You are free to PM me or start a bleeding thread on it. Capish?

You said:


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.

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)


What do you mean by a sizeable figure if I might ask?? Your assumption about a failed asylum seeker impregnating a legal resident in Ireland is very astonishing.

You previously said that the Zambrano law would be applicable to parents that have been in the child's life. If the failed asylum seeker happens to be in a loving relationship with a legal resident in Ireland and they decide to procreate- why would the state deny them the right to live together?

Ok! there would be cases of people intentionally using this avenue to legalise themselves but it would be unintelligible for a state to deny genuine relationships the right to have a family life because of the FEAR that some elements of those applicants might or would abuse the system. That is very wrong not only on a sociological level but it is an apparent disregard of their human rights and by any chance, are your friends at INIS considering the impact of separating families? In a few years and you have scences akin to Paris and UK race riots- ye would be asking what have we done wrong!


You stated that:

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 .

Excuse me?? That is patently incorrect. You stated that Ireland has had a disproportionate amount of asylum seekers/refugees relative to the population size and interestingly- geographical location! Those were your words. I made a comment on that fallacy and the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim!


Wierdly enough, you said:

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?



That is just fecking ridiculous! you opined that Ireland was been innundated with asylum seekers and it was disproportionate relative to the population and I gave you a clear example of Malta and all you could come up with is that Malta is nearer to Africa or more pathetically that Malta is not western Europe. You are one sick individual that is full of himself. Greece is closer to Africa than Ireland would ever be and yet Ireland refuses more asylum applications than Greece and yet the Irish government is ever ready to get the begging bowl to Brussels and Berlin for funds. Mo Chara does that make sense??


Look I do not want us to derail your thread any further. To remind us, this thread is basically celebrating victory for member states because it significantly limits Zambrano as you imply. I have told you my feelings. You are an anti-immigration/immigrant ideologue, you can continue to play the devils advocate on this forum but be rest assured that I am following every comment you make and would continue to point out your lovely.

[walrusgumble]

Walrus.....



You said:

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.


My point is that Ireland not having a mechanism in place to facilitate entry for immediate family members of Irish citizens is discriminatory. I am not suggesting a carte blanche scenerio for family members of Irish citizens to join them in Ireland but like the EU, immediate family members like spouses, fathers/mothers should enjoy that right. That is my opinion which you would find distasteful as usual.

1. It does have a mechanism in place because it did become government policy to ensure that there was no need for one. The Courts upheld it. Legal immigrants won't have too many problems. There is a mechanism for LEGAL immigrants who marry Irish Citizens under domestic law and via the Singh case, under EU law. It is distasteful that our country witness the baby boom anchor baby syndrome in the late 1990's. We have witnessed the mistakes of other countries, and unlike them, we can't afford to support these floods. You allow in one member of the family, you then have to deal with, as High Court cases show, attempts to bring in extended members of the family.

As for EU, that right is not automatic either. The EU citizen still needs to comply with the Directive. It involves EU citizens moving to another country, at some point. In many situations the family can always live somewhere in Europe, only in cases where it may not be possible, like Zambrano (and this was recognized in McCarthy) will EU law save the familly.

By the way, you are wrong. There was a mechanism. Despite what the Supreme Court said in 2003, the government of the day brought in an administrative amnesty under the guise of the IBC 05 scheme.

Immediate family members who have lived all their life with the child, ok, but definitely not where that family member has going joined up after 3-8 years after the child was born. What was the chances that some fathers would have bothered coming over if the mother was still fighting to get status? Slim and none.

What are the rules in your country?

You further stated that:

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.



That is a very pathetic comment and it shows how conceited you are. You must believe in your sub-conscious that these people can easily transport themselves enmasse to Dublin airport. Just because some fathers came with their wives does not mean the other fathers that did not try.

That is bullshit. Your expecting any national to believe that if two choices were put to them - (a) apply for asylum so no need for visas (b) apply for visas which you will definitely not get, the father decided to delay coming over until they go through the long and pointless route of visa. yet, once they realized that that was the wrong option, they then decide to come over with the chicken n bull story.

It's some coincidence that they only came over AFTER the mother got her status. And the money issue, no one buys it.

Have you considered the possibility or indeed the probability they did try unsuccessfully to accompany their wives?

Your saying that they were refused entry upon applying for asylum when the wife came over?

Your point is moot because they did enter the country to seek asylum or came in illegally, explanations for which I provided earlier on in the thread.

It is not moot. Its pointing out that they should have accompanied the mother when she first came over. Had they done this, there would be no issues now, they would have got their status. Your argument on visas is moot because all of a sudden they just came over on asylum. Why the delay, is the point. By the way, how many of these fathers sent money over to their wives so that they could live on ? ( I am sure some decent men did)

They were refused visas to join their Irish children and you said that is an indication that they were not welcome in the first place and yet part of the arguement that INIS is basing the refusal to grant them residency in the country is because they have not been in the child's life? isnt that contradictory in the sense that they were not afforded that opportunity in the first place?

It's not contradictory. There was nothing stopping them accompanying the mother on the asylum claim or even shortly after. no visa needed. why the delay in the only method of getting over. Spare us any excuse that they did not want to abuse or use the asylum system.

Your making these people out to be stupid victims. They are neither.

You said:

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.

Untrue. My point was that why would INIS refuse them on the basis that they would overstay their visas when it was clear they were joining their families? doesn't make sense.

The only visas available were short time holiday visas.Visas are only available for short stays. They are the visas they allegedly sought. If you want to stay longer, make representations to the department. this should have been made while in the home country and not while in Ireland, thus overstaying. There are no visas for family reunification for such a class of immigrant.

In relation to your accusation that I am deviating from Zambrano, you are essentially to blame for that, you consistently try to obfuscate by bringing up irrelevancies and bringing up national policy that are not germane to the topic.

Hold the boat, I don't accuse you of anything I made my self clear on that. You now see what it's like to be on the other end of someone distorting your views.

I mentioned Zambrano, simply to understand the basis for your views. I was talking about domestic law. you made some ridiculous comments. I was trying to give to the benefit of the doubt by seeing whether you were relying on Zambrano and EU law, which, unlike domestic law, shares your view. Did you not notice the "?" mark?

I brought up domestic law and national policies because you allowed yourself to indicate that you were speaking about domestic law and not EU law ala Zambrano.

Now, clarify, are you basing your comments on Zambrano or not?

You claim:

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.

It is good that you have acknowledged the failure to have legislation is damning. There is no clarity, coherence and the system is basically archaic .

I have always pointed that out. But even if it was put into legislation, nothing would change from what is happening now. The foundation can be found at Section 3 of Immigration Act 1999 and the case law that followed. The law on rights of citizens is very clear and if you read the caselaw, you will see what guidelines are out there. The Immigration lawyers, after years of dealing with the inis seem to know what works and what does not work.

You postulated that:

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.


I pointed out the fact that Ireland gets funds from both the EU and UNCHR to negate your point that the Irish tax payers were solely responsible for the costs. Your suggestion was disingenious and not depicting an accurate picture.

Provide links that shows that UNHCR money and EU money for asylum (and asylum only) sufficiently covers some of the expenses incurred so. How much has UNHCR provided in the pay 6 years.

The fact is the Irish government is paid to process asylum requests, the successful applicants then become the responsibilty of the state.

There is no doubt that once successful, the State is responsible. There is no problems there. There problem is the amount of unfounded cases, and the amount that should never have gone to the High Court.

You inquired?:

What's the immigration policy of your country?


I would end this once and for all and in this case I would use some unparliamentary language. Absolutely none of your bloody business,

Wrong. You know that you will come across as a hypocritic trying to preach to this country but say little or nothing about the high likelihood that your country has a worse problem. People are entitled also to know why your own country or neighboring country was not good enough to look after alleged asylum seekers. UNHCR itself and Dublin Convention expects a person to apply in the first safe country. Its clear that asylum can be sought in Africa and Asia

As for dealing with family members of your own fellow national, it is very possible that your country's record is no different.

Your not willing to show transparency, so some (not all, as some are valid) come across as self serving hypocrisy. Don't throw rocks into a glasshouse.

you started a thread on how Zambrano has been limited by Dereci and I decided to take you up on your anti-immigrant stance. If you want to know how my country deals with immigration/immigrants? You are free to PM me or start a bleeding thread on it. Capish?

That is fine. I will PM you and in the unlikely event that you respond, I will never disclose the nature of the discussion or use it against you, in the same ridiculous manner that you have tried against me. If you bothered to read my last post, I called on further discussion on asylum not to be put on this thread. I have made many other comments of the like. you ignored it. I am just responding, because we would not want you to be getting all high and mighty on a false basis. Don't go complaining if you ignore previous calls of keeping the topic on dercei.

You said:


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.

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)


What do you mean by a sizeable figure if I might ask?? Your assumption about a failed asylum seeker impregnating a legal resident in Ireland is very astonishing.

Wow, talking about taking a sentence out of context intentionally or sheer stupidity.

A sizeable figure already here, refers to the cases involving fathers of children born in Ireland pre citizenship laws, who are stilling waiting for a decision since zambrano

My comment, a separate comment, made on a separate paragraph about impregnating a legal resident, refers to future cases. I make no estimation as to how many that figure will be.

Because of the change of laws on Irish Citizenship,the limitations of Zambrano itself, the fact that most of the parents got sorted via ibc o5, Zambrano won't really effect many new cases in Ireland.

You previously said that the Zambrano law would be applicable to parents that have been in the child's life. If the failed asylum seeker happens to be in a loving relationship with a legal resident in Ireland and they decide to procreate- why would the state deny them the right to live together?

The failed asylum seeker's permission in this country is to claim that they got persecuted. They lost. It is not to start a family. They should not be allowed to be given so much time to achieve this , and they should not be allowed to side step normally immigration policy. By your contention, why should people who came here on work permits have bothered to go about the correct way of doing things and instead take the easy option of applying for asylum and getting lucky with a resident.?

What does your country do in this event?

Ok! there would be cases of people intentionally using this avenue to legalise themselves

Bit of an understatement.

but it would be unintelligible for a state to deny genuine relationships the right to have a family life because of the FEAR that some elements of those applicants might or would abuse the system.

They had no right in the first place. As the ECtHR themselves have clearly pointed out in the past; when considering the family life, they will look, among other things, whether it was known that the non eu 's status was on shaking grounds. ie if they married after a deportation order, for example, don't expect them to be protected

If a clear message is given, within the limits of what the law allows, how many of the legal residence would marry these people or conceive a child if they knew that the likelihood of the fact that it may not protect them was slim or that they were not willing to live elsewhere?

Intelligible? Soft Touch you mean.

That is very wrong not only on a sociological level but it is an apparent disregard of their human rights and by any chance, are your friends at INIS considering the impact of separating families?

Your country would know all about that I'm sure. Actually, Human Rights Courts have recognized that its ok, and that family life right is not absolute! Sociological level? please.

In a few years and you have scences akin to Paris and UK race riots- ye would be asking what have we done wrong!

Evidence that the violence is based on refusing fathers entry to the country? One way of dealing with that, stamp it out at the beginning via strong immigration laws that only tolerate legal immigrants.

That has got to one of the most self serving comments that I have seen in a while. One that could easily be turned over.

You stated that:

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 .

Excuse me?? That is patently incorrect. You stated that Ireland has had a disproportionate amount of asylum seekers/refugees relative to the population size and interestingly- geographical location! Those were your words. I made a comment on that fallacy and the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim!

You did, your just repeating your self. I asked for evidence of your support and rebuttal to my comment. have told you that I will search for the stats on the country countries.

You seem to know better , without looking for the stats or you have them, and you are the one who claimed you knew who was in the top 10, so onus of proof has now being transferred to you to support your premature contention.

Wierdly enough, you said:

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?



That is just fecking ridiculous! you opined that Ireland was been innundated with asylum seekers and it was disproportionate relative to the population

And geographical location. Please read what is said.

and I gave you a clear example of Malta and all you could come up with is that Malta is nearer to Africa or more pathetically that Malta is not western Europe.

With absolutely no evidence to support your contention either. Sadly, it has to be spelt out to you, Dublin Convention requires you to seek asylum in the first safe country. since Malta is closer, why is that weird. There are very few direct flights to Ireland and geographically its nowhere near Africa or Asia and its isolated from Mainland Europe

You are one sick individual that is full of himself. Greece is closer to Africa than Ireland would ever be and yet Ireland refuses more asylum applications than Greece

Evidence of that?

I would rather be full of my self and be able to successfully rebut shit from you.

You seem to be completely unaware of the very bad publicity Greece and Italy are getting with its asylum laws, its treatment of asylum seekers, it's ability to have no qualms sinking boats to stop immigrants from coming into the country. Go and educate yourself. Look into it.even idiots can google. there are cases in Europe over the Greek behavior (concerning the Dublin convention). websites like unhcr, amnesty, un human rights watch will all shut you up on that very poor example of greece.

and yet the Irish government is ever ready to get the begging bowl to Brussels and Berlin for funds. Mo Chara does that make sense??

And many more states in Eurpe are too, what is your point? What has this to do you immigrants and asylum seekers? Europe would be very happy to see the back of asylum seekers. You clearly don't realise why greece and italy are having so much problems with asylum seekers and the uselessness of the Dublin Convention.

Look I do not want us to derail your thread any further.

Why ignore my comment in the last post so? I requested that any further comments on asylum be left to another post. I have repeated calls for the thread to be stay on dercei

what's wrong? too stupid to follow requests or just run out of things to say?

All you and Morris have done was high jack this thread.

To remind us, this thread is basically celebrating victory for member states because it significantly limits Zambrano as you imply. I have told you my feelings. You are an anti-immigration/immigrant ideologue, you can continue to play the devils advocate on this forum but be rest assured that I am following every comment you make and would continue to point out your lovely.

Grand, and I will respond to your highly likely bullshit, stupidity, inaccuracies. I more than welcome you to come and try and have a pop on other forums. You will be outclassed and shown up for the spoofer you are.

By the way, his thread is about Dercei and what happens next. There are too examples of scenarios that need to be discussed. It ain't about victories etc at all. I was going to say nothing until you and morris high jack the thread, making comments that have utterly nothing to do with the case

its not anti immigration tone, its anti illegal spoofers that get my hostility (for the record, i am not talking about you

Good day

[germanguy]

My understanding of law is a bit limited and I have got some questions about the Dereci case and its implications that I hope you can shed some lights on.

EU-citizen and Non-EU cannot rely on the EU law to live together for example in Germany unless they had a German child in Germany. Is that correct? If not, is it possible to rely on nation law in the case of children ie. Art. 6 §3 GG?

Dereci or McCarthy are not applicable if the EU citizen had used his right of practical application of free movement. If the EU citizen had done so they can rely on the EU law and live together in an EU country that the EU part is not citizen of. This would mean that the EU citiizen has and used freedom of movement and the non-eu receives the derived freedom of movement. This also means they can go back to the country of the EU citizen using the return law and live there. The non-Eu would not get German citizenship after 3 years, but got permanent residency after 5 years. With and without children. Correct?

If so: What is practical application of free movement for a German citizen? Working and living in another EU country for a certain amount of time? Do you have any additional info here?

If applicable, do you consider it likely that there can and will be a nation law to override this idea of living together?

Thanks all

[walrusgumble]

My understanding of law is a bit limited and I have got some questions about the Dereci case and its implications that I hope you can shed some lights on.

EU-citizen and Non-EU cannot rely on the EU law to live together for example in Germany unless they had a German child in Germany. Is that correct? If not, is it possible to rely on nation law in the case of children ie. Art. 6 §3 GG?

Zambrano gives the potential for all children, citizens, to leave with the parents in the the country of birth. eg German child wanting to live in Germany, and the parent(s) are Non EU nationals. It does not allow A German Child to live in eg France, that is where Chen might apply.

However, Dereci says, if one of the parents is also a national of the country of the child (both EU citizens) and never moved to another EU country (McCarthy applies), then Zambrano does not apply.

This however, all depends, as per Zambrano, about the the possibility of the child being deprived of Residency in the EU. So, Dercei, like McCarthy says, as one of the parents is an EU too, there was no evidence that they could not exercise their rights in Europe as a whole.

EU law might not work, but despite everything, National law, as as government policy, could help them. National law as per Dereci still has to consider ECHR. So, depending on the facts of the case and the insurmountable obstacles test via ECHR, who knows.

Dereci or McCarthy are not applicable if the EU citizen had used his right of practical application of free movement.

If the EU citizen did use his rights, Dereci and McCarthy won't adversely effect the Applicant.

If the EU citizen had done so they can rely on the EU law and live together in an EU country that the EU part is not citizen of. This would mean that the EU citiizen has and used freedom of movement and the non-eu receives the derived freedom of movement. This also means they can go back to the country of the EU citizen using the return law and live there.

Yes the Surindeer Singh case of 1992 and Eind 2004/2005

The non-Eu would not get German citizenship after 3 years, but got permanent residency after 5 years. With and without children. Correct?

Germany citizenship, that is a matter for German law, so speak to someone who knows German law. THis is an Irish Section.

Permanent residency is granted AFTER the couple have legally (ie worked/self employed as per Article 7 of the Directive) lived in an EU State other than the EU citizen's Country for a continuous period of 5 years. See Article 16 and the exemptions in Article 17 of the Directive.

If so: What is practical application of free movement for a German citizen? Working and living in another EU country for a certain amount of time? Do you have any additional info here?

What do you mean?

If applicable, do you consider it likely that there can and will be a nation law to override this idea of living together?

"This idea of living together"? Your beginning to sound very dodgy. You want family reunification but don't want to live together? You will need to clarify want you meant by that.

You can be damn sure national law requires you to live together for most of the time . So too EU law (which overrules national law, if Treaty is applicable)

There will be a recognition that families do have to live apart for short spells ie working in another Country . eg French/German, Polish/German, Danish/Swedish, Belgian/Everyone, commuting to countries is normal on mainland Europe

[germanguy]

Thanks for the fast reply, its much appreciated.

What do you mean?

In the McCarthy case for instance it was mentioned that the parties have never exercised free movement rights and thus 2004/38/EC cannot apply. How is "exercising of free movement" defined? Under what circumstances does somebody exercise free movement rights under EU law and not only under nation law or by eg. relying on country-based (bilateral) free movement contracts (if there are any)? Is it eg. sufficient if he worked and lived in the other EU country for a certain amount of time?

"This idea of living together"? Your beginning to sound very dodgy. You want family reunification but don't want to live together? You will need to clarify want you meant by that.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear: By "this idea of living together" I meant this scenario: Eu citizen living in a EU country where he has no citizenship and he is living there in a way that his free movement was exercised. He then gets the wife/husband to live with him because of derived free movement rights. Then they go to live in the country where the EU citizen has citizenship by relying also on EU law. Is this scenario possible?


So this basically boils down to the question: Can a married EU Non-Eu couple live together in the land of the EU citizen even though they wouldn't be able to do so because of strict national law by having gone through the above scenario and how likely is this to succeed?

Thanks again

[walrusgumble]

In the McCarthy case for instance it was mentioned that the parties have never exercised free movement rights and thus 2004/38/EC cannot apply. How is "exercising of free movement" defined? Under what circumstances does somebody exercise free movement rights under EU law and not only under nation law or by eg. relying on country-based (bilateral) free movement contracts (if there are any)? Is it eg. sufficient if he worked and lived in the other EU country for a certain amount of time?

Moving to another Border. See Articles 3.1, 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/38

REfrain from talking about national law and bilateral free movement contracts (like Ireland and Britain), its irrelevant. Keep it simply, EU law.

As for time , in order to rely upon Singh? At least 6 months, there is no time limit.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear: By "this idea of living together" I meant this scenario: Eu citizen living in a EU country where he has no citizenship and he is living there in a way that his free movement was exercised. He then gets the wife/husband to live with him because of derived free movement rights. Then they go to live in the country where the EU citizen has citizenship by relying also on EU law. Is this scenario possible?

Yes. First, the couple can live in the Host Member State via Metock. Spend some time there, and then return Home via Singh case. Don't do it straight away.

So this basically boils down to the question: Can a married EU Non-Eu couple live together in the land of the EU citizen even though they wouldn't be able to do so because of strict national law by having gone through the above scenario and how likely is this to succeed?

If EU law applies, in any shape or form, (see Carpetner v UK 2001 as an interesting example) then yes. It is advised that they move to another part of Europe for some time and then return

[germanguy]

If EU law applies, in any shape or form, (see Carpetner v UK 2001 as an interesting example) then yes. It is advised that they move to another part of Europe for some time and then return

I'll take a look at Carpenter and Singh soon, thanks.

What confuses me here is a press release of the EU court:

EU citizens who have never exercised their right of free movement cannot invoke Union citizenship to regularise the residence of their non-EU spouse

Where such persons are not deprived of their right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, their situation has no connection with European Union law

(http://www.eulaws.eu/?p=323)

Having to be deprived of the rights is very different from my understanding and your explanations so far, ie. different from just needing to exercise the right. Is this an error in the press release?

Anyone else have a thought about this?

[walrusgumble]

If EU law applies, in any shape or form, (see Carpetner v UK 2001 as an interesting example) then yes. It is advised that they move to another part of Europe for some time and then return

I'll take a look at Carpenter and Singh soon, thanks.

What confuses me here is a press release of the EU court:

EU citizens who have never exercised their right of free movement cannot invoke Union citizenship to regularise the residence of their non-EU spouse

Where such persons are not deprived of their right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, their situation has no connection with European Union law

(http://www.eulaws.eu/?p=323)

Having to be deprived of the rights is very different from my understanding and your explanations so far, ie. different from just needing to exercise the right. Is this an error in the press release?

Anyone else have a thought about this?

At the same time, IF there is some element, a tiny element of Free movement, then the Courts tended to apply a liberal interpretation,especially for NON EU people, even if it is not what the Members States intended.

Carpetner for example exercised his rights to free movement of services, (questionable but there you go) It is not just the workers


Deprived of right, means, there is actually something stopping them from moving to another country. In many cases, this will rarely be proven