Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[Monifé]

Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie

[Morrisj]

2 b honest Mr wall grumble u r really full of shit i swear,go bk to ur previous n take a look of what u said abt Shatter n his connection with Israel,nw u bn attacked by 3 ppl,u r saying u ve respect 4 him,u really nd to cure ur madness 4real,take a look at Germany,Sweden e.t.c the right of their citizens comes 1st.Dermot Ahern in his regime brought Reverse discrimination n u must be really foolish thinkn il honestly post my age here,am only fooling u cos u r so foolish.Take ur story abt Zambrano to ECJ

[fatty patty]

Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie

hey dont blame me...

[Monifé]

2 b honest Mr wall grumble u r really full of shit i swear,go bk to ur previous n take a look of what u said abt Shatter n his connection with Israel,nw u bn attacked by 3 ppl,u r saying u ve respect 4 him,u really nd to cure ur madness 4real,take a look at Germany,Sweden e.t.c the right of their citizens comes 1st.Dermot Ahern in his regime brought Reverse discrimination n u must be really foolish thinkn il honestly post my age here,am only fooling u cos u r so foolish.Take ur story abt Zambrano to ECJ

While I am all for a healthy debate and the majority of the time, would have the opposite opinion of Walrusgumble, there is no need to be cursing or calling people names.

[walrusgumble]

Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie

i would not be so smug monife, if i were you. but by all means, point out what was stated that is incorrect.

[walrusgumble]

2 b honest Mr wall grumble u r really full of shit i swear,go bk to ur previous n take a look of what u said abt Shatter n his connection with Israel,nw u bn attacked by 3 ppl,u r saying u ve respect 4 him,u really nd to cure ur madness 4real,take a look at Germany,Sweden e.t.c the right of their citizens comes 1st.Dermot Ahern in his regime brought Reverse discrimination n u must be really foolish thinkn il honestly post my age here,am only fooling u cos u r so foolish.Take ur story abt Zambrano to ECJ

It is clear that for some here, English is not their first language, as there is an hysterical use of words like "attack" and "bashing" as oppose to legitimate criticism. It is also clear that some on the boards do not know enough on their subject as they go into defensive mode when challenged.

If you go back to when I commented on Shatter's allegiance to Israel, it was refering to those who were in high praise of a man they do not know who he was.

It was a pointer of those of the muslim faith from countries which are not too friendly to Israel (Not neccessarily meaning the applicant is/not) who are seeking some form of protection.It was saying, lets see how in favour you are if Shatter brings his own prejudices when considering humanitarian cases. Love to be in the same room as him when he is reading submissions on leave to remains from people from Palestine and looking at the reports from UN etc supporting the application.

There was rumour that Shatter was heading for Foreign Affairs, but they would not have succeeded and the Left would have prevented it.

If you had any understanding or awareness of current affairs in Ireland, you would have understood what one was referring to. But, it certaintly did go over your head.

People really should refrain from commenting on matters they don't know what they are talking about. Alas, SHatter's foreign affairs personal opinion is irrelevant on this particular topic. But its a pointer, its too early to parade him. I have no doubt he will do a good job though.

I have respect for him. I have said it earlier and on earlier posts. I have respect for him because he is a leading expert in family law. one of view people who has succeeded in bringing in private members bills through the dail. leading member in much needed family law legislation.

In this country, seems one can't in yours, one is allowed to admire a person and still be critical of one or two aspects of them. Its called a debate. Any significant leader leaves a legacy that causes applause and criticism. There were good and bad about Haughey, the same about the most recent late Fitzgerald, De Valera and so on. You seem to be one of those challenged people that it is all or nothing.

So what was the point you were trying to make?


Attacks on me? where? pretty feeable.



Germany? They take a similar approach to the "reverse discrimination" as Ireland, what the feck are you talking about?. German immigration is far tougher. Germany have been hauled before the ECJ on far more occassions than Ireland regarding Free movement of people. German government is not very popular at the moment.

These notion or fable of "reverse discrimination" has been around for decades, don't give that gimp Aherne or O'Dongoghue that credit. British are the same and half of Europe.The other half decide to treat all the same, that is there business, you are free to go there and meet up with one of their nationals

In fairness, I did not really believe that you were 20, but it would have explained alot. Don't see what is foolish to disclose one's age though, it prooves nothing.But hey, disclosure of truth and honesty is probably not your forte.

When you take the stamp 1,2,3, cases out of the way; and discuss the cases who deeply rely on Zambrano; What will you be saying about Shatter, a politican, a bred of people who have no problems with U turns, if he has failed to communicate any decisions in say one months time? Won't you be saying, what's the delay? If he is so great, why doesn't he instruct his lawyers and tell them settle all those current High Court cases which solely rely on Zambrano?

Will you still be holding a candle to him after 1-2 months and no response?

I put it to you, it is you that is full of shi^.

[Monifé]

Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie

i would not be so smug monife, if i were you.

What is that suppose to mean? Jeez, lighten up. It was only a joke.

but by all means, point out what was stated that is incorrect.

Never said you were wrong at all. Actually just skim read most of it, couldn't be bothered. Relax the cacks, it was only a joke.

[Morrisj]

Lol Mr Wall Grumble where did i mention English is my 1st lang?xmkmdgmd thats my 1st lang ha.I am actually getting bored with ur stories,infact u r very good at twisting words to fool ppl.Take a look at d topic of d post u created 1st d spelling of ur Zambrano Mr Wgrumble d Englis h teacher or was that a typographical error?I wonder how u got d spelling wrong n write much about d case.Looking at d topic its clear to c,u created it becos u tot ppl like u,will join d train but u r surprise u got d opposite

[Morrisj]

And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was

[walrusgumble]

Lol Mr Wall Grumble where did i mention English is my 1st lang?xmkmdgmd thats my 1st lang ha.I am actually getting bored with ur stories,infact u r very good at twisting words to fool ppl.Take a look at d topic of d post u created 1st d spelling of ur Zambrano Mr Wgrumble d Englis h teacher or was that a typographical error?I wonder how u got d spelling wrong n write much about d case.Looking at d topic its clear to c,u created it becos u tot ppl like u,will join d train but u r surprise u got d opposite

You have been asked a question, you shoul stop avoiding it. I will repeat it again.

When you take the stamp 1,2,3, cases out of the way; and discuss the cases who deeply rely on Zambrano (ie people who have no status,); What will you be saying about Shatter, a politican, a bred of people who have no problems with U turns, if he has failed to communicate any decisions in say one months time? Won't you be saying, what's the delay? If he is so great, why doesn't he instruct his lawyers and tell them settle all those current High Court cases which solely rely on Zambrano?

Will you still be holding a candle to him after 1-2 months if people are still in the same boat as they are now?

Point of asking this question: Its too early to be canonising people yet. Political statements are often cheap. If you have been in Ireland long enough, you will understand why one is sceptic.

But of course you are bored. You have ran out of anything to say.

Telling the truth, being accurate with the factual matters of what one says, and providing evidence to back it up is not twisting.

It is twisting it when people like you throw the self serving self pity and retarded statements and confirmation that you are being a victim of beloved, where there is no evidence to suggest same.

The reference to your ability to speak English, is with my criticism of the incorrect use of words like "bashing" (as in criticising Shatter) and "attack" (as in three people criticised or challenged what I have said). Pointing out that Shatter may not neccessarily be the appropriate person to deal with asylum/human rights cases, is not hardly bashing.

Misspelling? I have never criticised you for mispelling. I am criticising you for inappropriate use of words and your clear inability to read what is actually writing. Don't go accusing people of twisting things, if you are too slow to understand what has actually been said. I must say, god help anyone relying on you to defend them, Zambrano as an example, hardly a name that rolls of the tip of most Irish people, is it? Please go away, you truely are a retard of the highest order, any 10 year old could read the judgment, understand it and never actually bother to look or care about the names of the applicant. The names of the applicant are irrelevant.

."Looking at d topic its clear to c,u created it becos u tot ppl like u,will join d train but u r surprise u got d opposite"

It must not be clear to you because I never started the topic at all. I joined in. I don't care about whether people join my train of thought. That is not what discussion and debate is neccesary about. I could not take any satisfaction from knowing sponges like you would agree with me anyway because you are incapable of coming up with your own idea. I have seen you cite and refer to other cases and why Zambrano and McCarthy should go a certain way; you really did not understand what you were saying, bar copy and pasting off comments by other bloggers.

I don't care whether you agree with what I say. I comment on incorrect statements and explain what I understand is the department's position and why they have come to such an approach. An intelligent person would pay heed to it, and work evidence etc in their favour in order to prevent them from falling within the scope of the department. I have also expressed my own political view on how the IBC people should be treated, and naturally, as people like you rely on it you hardly are going to agree, but I don't care, you have no vote or power.

Again, go and answer the question put to you as you seem so convinced that Shatter is being "attacked". iF you'nt go away.

[walrusgumble]

And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was

It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.

I said child move on because regardless of your age, you act like one on this boards with trite like my mind is more advance etc.

You mentioned 3. Germany and Sweden and one more country only. There were no "others". Germany would still be bigger than the two that you mentioned combined.

Ireland and the UK share an interest in Northern Ireland. It has a historic link, and long time common immigration policy. We are island nations in Europe. Its essesential that we have similar policies, whether we like it or not. UK have followed Ireland in very little, to be honest, maybe how we cope with the smoking ban.

Metock was a preliminary reference case. No one really brought us to court, bar the client. But it was the Irish High Courts decision not to decide on it (and inevitably go to the Supreme Court) and ask the ECJ for their view as caselaw from ECJ was conflicting. I think the last kind of freemovement of people case Ireland was a party to was in or around 1980's. (Ireland won) Zambrano invites countries to make submissions. Seriously, please do go and learn what the procedures are for Preliminary References.

[Muttsnuts]

And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was

It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.

I said child move on because regardless of your age, you act like one on this boards with trite like my mind is more advance etc.

You mentioned 3. Germany and Sweden and one more country only. There were no "others". Germany would still be bigger than the two that you mentioned combined.

Ireland and the UK share an interest in Northern Ireland. It has a historic link, and long time common immigration policy. We are island nations in Europe. Its essesential that we have similar policies, whether we like it or not. UK have followed Ireland in very little, to be honest, maybe how we cope with the smoking ban.

Metock was a preliminary reference case. No one really brought us to court, bar the client. But it was the Irish High Courts decision not to decide on it (and inevitably go to the Supreme Court) and ask the ECJ for their view as caselaw from ECJ was conflicting. I think the last kind of freemovement of people case Ireland was a party to was in or around 1980's. (Ireland won) Zambrano invites countries to make submissions. Seriously, please do go and learn what the procedures are for Preliminary References.

Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances.

In relation to those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually.

[walrusgumble]

And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was

It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.

I said child move on because regardless of your age, you act like one on this boards with trite like my mind is more advance etc.

You mentioned 3. Germany and Sweden and one more country only. There were no "others". Germany would still be bigger than the two that you mentioned combined.

Ireland and the UK share an interest in Northern Ireland. It has a historic link, and long time common immigration policy. We are island nations in Europe. Its essesential that we have similar policies, whether we like it or not. UK have followed Ireland in very little, to be honest, maybe how we cope with the smoking ban.

Metock was a preliminary reference case. No one really brought us to court, bar the client. But it was the Irish High Courts decision not to decide on it (and inevitably go to the Supreme Court) and ask the ECJ for their view as caselaw from ECJ was conflicting. I think the last kind of freemovement of people case Ireland was a party to was in or around 1980's. (Ireland won) Zambrano invites countries to make submissions. Seriously, please do go and learn what the procedures are for Preliminary References.

Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances.

In relation to those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually.

"Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances."

Yes, we know that. No one is in disputes with that fact. The High Court, after submissions from both sides, decided to refer the matter to the ECJ. Is there any particular point to highlighting that? Is how the case went before the ECJ really that relevant? Genuine question.

" those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually"

I would agree with that. But it is clearly not what a politican (shatter) clearly indicated in his Statement in March. I would also go as far as to suggest that he will in fact have a wait and see policy regarding the pending High Court cases. Some of the State argument might suggest that McCarthy limits Zambrano (thats what I have heard anyway) That is the basis of my criticism of others who put too much premature faith in ANY minister for justice. To interfere even with the outcome of the actual pending cases would be a breach of separation of powers. So, he is not the messiah , yet.

I will be holding those who will inevitable "attack" Shatter (for whatever reason) in the future by reminding them of their blind but optimistic support in his early days.

[Muttsnuts]

"Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances."

Yes, we know that. No one is in disputes with that fact. The High Court, after submissions from both sides, decided to refer the matter to the ECJ. Is there any particular point to highlighting that? Is how the case went before the ECJ really that relevant? Genuine question.

" those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually"

I would agree with that. But it is clearly not what a politican (shatter) clearly indicated in his Statement in March. I would also go as far as to suggest that he will in fact have a wait and see policy regarding the pending High Court cases. Some of the State argument might suggest that McCarthy limits Zambrano (thats what I have heard anyway) That is the basis of my criticism of others who put too much premature faith in ANY minister for justice. To interfere even with the outcome of the actual pending cases would be a breach of separation of powers. So, he is not the messiah , yet.

I will be holding those who will inevitable "attack" Shatter (for whatever reason) in the future by reminding them of their blind but optimistic support in his early days.

I only mention the 4 applicants as it appeared that people had not realised this fact.

I think that Shatter has been quite proactive and most definitely more proactive than previous Ministers for Justice. The announcement that persons can attend the GNIB to change their existing status is definitely a welcome proactive step.

I would suggest that McCarthy does limit Zambrano in some respects. It limits the concept of EU Citizenship as a basis for EU Treaty rights (which was suggested in Zambrano), in that it confirms that Zambrano is the ONLY scenario whereby EU Treaty Rights can be invoked without the necessary cross border movement element. However, it does not conclusively answer all the questions raised by Zambrano and indeed raises more questions on the dual citizenship issue e.g. can a UK AND Irish national rely on EU Treaty Rights at all if they reside in Ireland or England?

In relation to existing cases featuring Zambrano issues, these can be dealt with by the Minister. It is most definitely not a breach of the principle of separation of powers for the Minister for Justice to offer to settle those judicial review cases which clearly fall within the four corners of Zambrano. This has been done in the past. The fact is that all Zambrano cases are currently on hold. I think that there will have to be several cases heard (with judgements that definitively answer the questions raised by Zambrano) before some definite consensus is come to by the judiciary. WHen that happens, the Minister will take a definite stance and the offers to settle will start coming through to clear the backlog of cases.

[walrusgumble]

"Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances."

Yes, we know that. No one is in disputes with that fact. The High Court, after submissions from both sides, decided to refer the matter to the ECJ. Is there any particular point to highlighting that? Is how the case went before the ECJ really that relevant? Genuine question.

" those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually"

I would agree with that. But it is clearly not what a politican (shatter) clearly indicated in his Statement in March. I would also go as far as to suggest that he will in fact have a wait and see policy regarding the pending High Court cases. Some of the State argument might suggest that McCarthy limits Zambrano (thats what I have heard anyway) That is the basis of my criticism of others who put too much premature faith in ANY minister for justice. To interfere even with the outcome of the actual pending cases would be a breach of separation of powers. So, he is not the messiah , yet.

I will be holding those who will inevitable "attack" Shatter (for whatever reason) in the future by reminding them of their blind but optimistic support in his early days.

I only mention the 4 applicants as it appeared that people had not realised this fact.

I think that Shatter has been quite proactive and most definitely more proactive than previous Ministers for Justice. The announcement that persons can attend the GNIB to change their existing status is definitely a welcome proactive step.

I would suggest that McCarthy does limit Zambrano in some respects. It limits the concept of EU Citizenship as a basis for EU Treaty rights (which was suggested in Zambrano), in that it confirms that Zambrano is the ONLY scenario whereby EU Treaty Rights can be invoked without the necessary cross border movement element. However, it does not conclusively answer all the questions raised by Zambrano and indeed raises more questions on the dual citizenship issue e.g. can a UK AND Irish national rely on EU Treaty Rights at all if they reside in Ireland or England?

In relation to existing cases featuring Zambrano issues, these can be dealt with by the Minister. It is most definitely not a breach of the principle of separation of powers for the Minister for Justice to offer to settle those judicial review cases which clearly fall within the four corners of Zambrano. This has been done in the past. The fact is that all Zambrano cases are currently on hold. I think that there will have to be several cases heard (with judgements that definitively answer the questions raised by Zambrano) before some definite consensus is come to by the judiciary. WHen that happens, the Minister will take a definite stance and the offers to settle will start coming through to clear the backlog of cases.

Taking the Stamp 1-3's aside (yes proactive but hardly significant as it was the right thing to do), and in full agreement with what you have said regarding what is likely to happen, it goes against what Shatter had orginally stated in his statement.

[Obie]

Mr Shatters has shown tremendous leadership, courage, and a great degree of fairness, for which he must be commended. He has been proactive in not just words but also in action . Following the judgement, he instructed his department to undertake an urgent review of all affected cases, without delays, and to look at the possibility of conceding the pending court cases, in the interest of the children concerned and to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That in my book, is a true symbol of leadership , integrity , and openess, irrespective of your personal views.

As someone who claimed to be a past civil servent , on the department's payroll, i will expect you to appreciate that these reviews of cases involves people in different countries ,and cannot be undertaken overnight.

The previous government changed the offensive legislation 4 days after the judgement in metock was passed and re-started the status quo of harrassing and withholding the rights of genuine couples. Behind the scenes plotting a coup against the logical and fair conclusion of the honourable judges, which was not a new law, but a proper interpretation of the treaty they signed up to and for. Shame on them..

Long life Mr Shatters, keep up the good job and i will vote for FG in next election. beloved must be put to death and buried for good.

[Morrisj]

I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?

Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.

You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?

R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.

Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?

I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring

and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.

[Morrisj]

and

[Muttsnuts]

I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?

Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.

You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?

R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.

Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?

I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring

and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.

To answer your question as to who took the Metock case....

4 Applicants including Mr Metock took Judicial Review proceedings against the State as they had been refused permission to remain on the basis of EU Treaty Rights. They had been refused because they did not not have prior lawful residence in another EU State before applying for permissiont to remain in Ireland. THis was a requiremnet stipulated by the Irish legislation that introduced Directive 2004/38 into Irish Law.

In the High Court, the question arose as to whether the Irish requirement of prior lawful residence was permitted by Directive 2004/38. The HC could not answer that question definitively without asking the ECJ's opinion.

Therefore, who sent Metock to the ECJ? It was Judge Finlay Geogheghan in the High Court.

It should be noted that the Irish government (and indeed most of the Governments of the EU) fought this tooth and nail in the ECJ. You'll note from the written judgement that many EU Member states made oral submissions and these would all have been arguing against the applicants case.

[walrusgumble]

I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?

Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.

You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?

R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.

Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?

I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring

and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.

And what? Miss me? lol This is the first opportunity to respond

Please stop writing in text speak. You are well able to write far clearly than that. It is taking ages to understand some of the comments.

THe Metock case involved EU citizens who were resident in Ireland. To challenge the validity of an Irish stipulation which was not contained in the Directive. Instead of going the long way round, ie requiring an inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court, which considering the make up of that Court, would possibly have sided with the government, the High Court (Finlay Geogheghan who has been kind to immigration) referred the matter to ECJ via Preliminary Reference. There at the ECJ, the lawyers for the Applicants, the State, Commission and other countries ,make their proposals. The AG makes his opinion, and the ECJ judges consider the EU law.

Without the Preliminary Reference, the parties, would have unlikely been able to afford to bring it to Europe as they would have spent thousands in the Irish Courts alone. Preliminary Reference also provides quick decisions , especially where the matter is crucial.


what is your point ? The German's,UK and French have been pulled before the ECJ on Free movement issues far more often than Ireland. Was there really a need for me to answer since another person immediately after you posed that question gave you your answer?

There is nothing bullshit about the explanation. The trends were far to high to call it a co-incidence. People did get married in order to save themselves from immigration situation. Some got married AFTER deportation orders. How many of these people would have actually bothered to enter a marriage if their status in Ireland was safe?

Ireland was given precedence of ECJ case of Akrich to do what they did. Jia was potentially distinguishable in that the latter involved people who remained legal at all times and were unlikely to become burdens of the state. XRAX involved entering the country and not much on staying forever. Metock was needed as the ECJ had been inconsistent in other cases and were tripping themselves over. Moreover, Akrich was old by 2008 and attitudes change.

Straight answers?, that what I have been doing ever since, hence why my posts are rather long, as I have responded to every comment you or others make. And I shall do so now. You do not like the answers, that is your problem. It is no coincidence that the marriage rate has lowered for the first 6 months, with the economy the way it is and the fact that an EU citizen has to actually exercise their rights (eg work)

What examples are there that other EU countries are copying Ireland? Have they not a mind of there own? What does it say about them and the true understanding of what EU means to them?

Go and talk to German people regarding the immigration and citizenship rules in Germany. In their defence, at least the rules are on paper, unlike Ireland. Germans require people to speak Dutch?

Where are the examples of Shatter going against Aherne's Policies, that have not been forced by the ECJ.? (The notion of Aherne having any policies in anything he ever did, is highly laughable) DONT YOU NOT MEAN THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES. Shatter can't do too much without putting the matter to the rest of the cabinet. Collective Responsibilty it is called.

Shatter has not being in Government long enough to have implemented many policies or to be challenged on any. He is correct to allow people on Stamp 1-3 to be allowed an opportunity to change their status on the basis of parentage of Citizen Child, which was not considered after 2005. The whole change in residency law of parents of Citizen Children, as created by Lobe in 2003 and the main reason for the result in the Referendum was to stop or deter non eu people (who the asylum decision makers proved to be merely economic migrants) who did not try to enter via work permits from trying to get status through the back door (by simply giving birth in Ireland). It should not have been intended to punish those who were invited to come to Ireland and were given permission to stay in Ireland, hence why a general application of Lobe to every person was completely unfair.

. But that was not Shatter's decision, but the ECJ. He correctly decided to sort them out first as they have stronger cases than even the applicants in Zambrano.

It was/is totally unfair for these people (stamp 1 and 3) not to be given an opportunity to experience Stamp 4 status because as one Prime Time Programme showed 2 years ago, these people who genuinely contributed to society were left in serious economic limbo and potential economic abuse, and dare I say slavery. They were not intending to leave Ireland and they would have more than earned their naturalisation.

We will never know, but it would have been interesting to see if Shatter would have changed the domestic law and have assisted parents of Irish Citizens, who hold Stamp 1-3, and provide them with Stamp 4, on the basis of the child, as oppose to forcing them to make Long Term Residency Applications.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between my attitude towards legal and illegal immigrants. When I say illegal immigrants, I do not refer to the immigrants who originally came to Ireland legally and with visas, but have become undocumented for reasons that were not their fault. Nor am I referring to people from seriously dangerous countries that actually at least require an alternative form of protection to refugee status. None of what I have said above is anything new, I have said it many time on this site. But of course, you will twist it and get all persecution complex on us.

With regard to family reunification, where there is already one non eu parent legally living in Ireland via parentage of a citizen child, and a non eu parent who is trying to come to Ireland now, that is a different story. Many of these cases are before the courts. My sympathy depends on why that parent never followed the legal parent to Ireland (mother), how long where they apart, why did they stay apart and the more important question, did the parent (father) who did not come to Ireland send any money to his child in Ireland or even visited his child. IE was there any genuine past attempts to be an active parent?

This will be interesting as I feel, if the State argue McCarthy, they might say, like they do in domestic law, there is nothing stopping the Ciitizen child from staying in Ireland and Europe as one parent is there for the child. Considering Shatter's excellent experience and knowledge in family law, and Hogan J at the helm in the High Court, it will be interesting that both or either, practice what they preached in their lawyer days.


One interesting idea Shatter has brought, in the short space of time, is the temporary wavement of visa requirements from certain countries in the run up to the Olympics in London. That maybe good, at least its a genuine attempt to improve the economy, but it seems that it would or it is hoped that it attracts rich people only (how you seen the price of our hotels etc?)


"You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?"

If he is serious on what he said in his statement in March/APril, then why not? Isn't that what YOU are demanding?

If he is so sure that Zambrano is correct, let him save the country money and court time in hearing the cases. I put it too you, that he will be very keen on allowing these cases to go ahead. Some WILL go to Europe. WOnder what will Shatter say if the High Court and ECJ goes supports the state policy in certain areas? It would be easy for him to take whatever route he takes, as he will be relieved that the political decision had not been his but that of the other administration. He can get political points on it, and do nothing to sort it out - as most politicans do. He can say "but my hands are tied".

Shatter has the right to tell his lawyers to cease the case and make some speech that the position is now moot. But it would not be a good idea to prevent the High Court from deciding the case before them as it would allow the government to understand what is legal and illegal in the future.


"Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?"

Excellent step regarding people who have legal status. But, he has done nothing yet, about former asylum seekers and those who are illegal now/people in similar situation to Zambrano applicants.

Point out, for my information,High Court cases in the last 3 years and this year that have got status soley via zambrano or similar argument (parentage of irish citizen child)! Provide evidence, courts.ie and bailii.org. Or even point out the newspaper articles. Cases that DO NOT INVOLvE stamp 1-2-3's. Antedotal evidence is irrelevant and can't prove your point. Most cases are now reported on the net.

I see no reason why some parents, who clearly only discovered a new found interest in their family and came over to Ireland 2-4 years after the birth of the child, via asylum procedure (instead of visas and work permits) and did not provide evidence of active parentage, should be rewarded.


I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring"

It is because you have nothing to say about it and are unable to make a counter argument. You know you are wrong.You should refrain, completely from making any comment on other people's posts and criticising it when you are not willing to read them in full. It creates the situation where you twist things, accuse people of saying something they did not say, show your ignorance and its pointless."

Stories don't tend to be facts, alot of the time, maybe if some people's "stories" were true and they were able to back them up with facts, then maybe they would have got their refugee status. Your probably good with "stories".?

"and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better."

For you, it depends on whether the vital information, suits you. And when you criticise the government, which you are fully entitled to do, you can't expect to be challenged on it or be allowed to spead lies. Idioticy and incompetence on the governments side is one thing, corruption on the sole basis of immigration law, as many like you have commented, is another.

[walrusgumble]

and

I assume you are referring to me. 2And 2what?

My full response is above this message. I have only logged on now and responded immediately.Surely you were not waiting all this long in anticipation? lol

Now, return to my question.

Will you be holding a candle for Shatter if you don't get the result that you wish for? Or, in the future, when he does little to help those waiting 34 months for citizenship? (in fairness, you are absolutely correct that he could not get blamed as it was the previous governments fault, but that little fact will be loss on you when you are complaining)

The whole point is, its too early to judge him. I do believe, though, he will be good, for everyone, as its unlikely due to age and the competiveness of his constituency (when trying to get re-elected) that he will get another shot at ministerial level. He will be very keen to leave a good legacy.

[walrusgumble]

I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?

Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.

You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?

R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.

Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?

I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring

and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.

To answer your question as to who took the Metock case....

4 Applicants including Mr Metock took Judicial Review proceedings against the State as they had been refused permission to remain on the basis of EU Treaty Rights. They had been refused because they did not not have prior lawful residence in another EU State before applying for permissiont to remain in Ireland. THis was a requiremnet stipulated by the Irish legislation that introduced Directive 2004/38 into Irish Law.

In the High Court, the question arose as to whether the Irish requirement of prior lawful residence was permitted by Directive 2004/38. The HC could not answer that question definitively without asking the ECJ's opinion.

Therefore, who sent Metock to the ECJ? It was Judge Finlay Geogheghan in the High Court.

It should be noted that the Irish government (and indeed most of the Governments of the EU) fought this tooth and nail in the ECJ. You'll note from the written judgement that many EU Member states made oral submissions and these would all have been arguing against the applicants case.

I could not have put it better myself. Had I read your post first, I would not have bothered responding. Be careful though, you might get attacked for pointing out that the politcos of Europe don't tend to agree with the ECJ. I know I have.


(No Morris, 9 Eireann or the other person, I am not trying "to get him/her on my side" thankfully the poster has a brain and decides for themselves. But sure, without spelling the applicant's name correctly sure one is not capable of reading the court transcript, right?)

[walrusgumble]

Mr Shatters has shown tremendous leadership, courage, and a great degree of fairness, for which he must be commended. He has been proactive in not just words but also in action . Following the judgement, he instructed his department to undertake an urgent review of all affected cases, without delays, and to look at the possibility of conceding the pending court cases, in the interest of the children concerned and to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That in my book, is a true symbol of leadership , integrity , and openess, irrespective of your personal views.

As someone who claimed to be a past civil servent , on the department's payroll, i will expect you to appreciate that these reviews of cases involves people in different countries ,and cannot be undertaken overnight.

The previous government changed the offensive legislation 4 days after the judgement in metock was passed and re-started the status quo of harrassing and withholding the rights of genuine couples. Behind the scenes plotting a coup against the logical and fair conclusion of the honourable judges, which was not a new law, but a proper interpretation of the treaty they signed up to and for. Shame on them..

Long life Mr Shatters, keep up the good job and i will vote for FG in next election. beloved must be put to death and buried for good.

I agree.

Sure doesn't it keep the boys and girls in justice in jobs and very busy?

But will he make actual decisions or just wait for the court. Is he just reviewing the old and new cases (non stamp 1,2,3) in order to come up with the stats and make his arguments for the courts, whether to defend the state's current position or not?

The statement indicated that he would go ahead with his decisions, possibly to grant status, even if the High Court does not support the applicants and even if the ECJ agrees to some limits on Zambrano.

That is fine and well if he turned out to be correct in eu law to do so, but not if the courts support the current state's position. That is my only complaint. ie making the statement which to me, indicates that he will grant status, irrespective of the courts future rulings and making decisions possibly ignoring the courts.

I am not complaining about him actually giving status, but complaining that he is open to a possible very public and embarrassing U Turn.

"and re-started the status quo of harrassing and withholding the rights of genuine couples. Behind the scenes plotting a coup against the logical and fair conclusion of the honourable judges, which was not a new law, but a proper interpretation of the treaty they signed up to and for. Shame on them"

Can you provide examples, post Metock. You mean the "delay tactics" / failure to meet the 6 months requirements and the visa nonsense? Harrassing ? Where, you mean demanding that the couples actually prove the genuine relationship with full and proper documentary evidence of residence? The government were trying to follow the ECJ case of Akrich. Despite Jia, Akrich had not been formly renounced. McDowell made that clear in the dail debates.

[Obie]

McDowell is an evil man, whose main goal in life was to oppress and distabilise the lives of hardworking and for the most part, law abiding immigrant, the same was Ahern. Jia overruled Akrich fullstop, no ifs or buts. The fact that UK, Ireland, Denmark and Finland of the 27 states did not see it that way does not change this fact. Despite the court stating Mrs Jia was lawfully resident in Sweden at the time of her application, does not mean they would have disqualified her if she wasn't. For nearly all the memberstates, a visitors visa is not considered resident, nevermind lawful residence for the purpose of making an in country residence application They were departing from Akrich, they rejected the advocate general's opinion which supported a restrictive approach.

What Ireland was doing was actually ignoring jia, they went far beyond the UK. Even people who were lawfully resident in Ireland were rejected on grounds that they have never resided lawfully in another memberstate, which was a blatant contept for court ruling and utter disregard for the community institutions.


Their wicked and malicious actions costed the Irish taxpayers thousands of euros in court fees, compensation and bringing the affected families back to Ireland. For a country like Ireland at it knees, such money could have been better utilised. It demonstrates incompetence of the minister at the highest degree.

Mr Shatters step is the most sensible approach, he learns from others mistake, he is not like those FF CLOWNS, who goes back and lick their vomits, like dogs. For example look at the fiasco regarding the change from stamp 4 to stamp 3 for family member awaiting a decision on their EU 1 Application. This was thankfully, swiftly abolished by the courts, immediately. These are all indication of systematic and blatant disregard for the law.

I reiterate that zambrano is here to stay. There is absolutely no need for further interpretation, which i am confident Mr Shatters understands. Memberstate can only derogate from their duty on grounds of public policy, public health or public security. It is about time you grasp this reality. It might be a shock to you, but it is here for the long haul. It will be better for us all to get use to it.

[Muttsnuts]

McDowell is an evil man, whose main goal in life was to oppress and distabilise the lives of hardworking and for the most part, law abiding immigrant, the same was Ahern. Jia overruled Akrich fullstop, no ifs or buts. The fact that UK, Ireland, Denmark and Finland of the 27 states did not see it that way does not change this fact. Despite the court stating Mrs Jia was lawfully resident in Sweden at the time of her application, does not mean they would have disqualified her if she wasn't. For nearly all the memberstates, a visitors visa is not considered resident, nevermind lawful residence for the purpose of making an in country residence application They were departing from Akrich, they rejected the advocate general's opinion which supported a restrictive approach.

What Ireland was doing was actually ignoring jia, they went far beyond the UK. Even people who were lawfully resident in Ireland were rejected on grounds that they have never resided lawfully in another memberstate, which was a blatant contept for court ruling and utter disregard for the community institutions.


Their wicked and malicious actions costed the Irish taxpayers thousands of euros in court fees, compensation and bringing the affected families back to Ireland. For a country like Ireland at it knees, such money could have been better utilised. It demonstrates incompetence of the minister at the highest degree.

Mr Shatters step is the most sensible approach, he learns from others mistake, he is not like those FF CLOWNS, who goes back and lick their vomits, like dogs. For example look at the fiasco regarding the change from stamp 4 to stamp 3 for family member awaiting a decision on their EU 1 Application. This was thankfully, swiftly abolished by the courts, immediately. These are all indication of systematic and blatant disregard for the law.

I reiterate that zambrano is here to stay. There is absolutely no need for further interpretation, which i am confident Mr Shatters understands. Memberstate can only derogate from their duty on grounds of public policy, public health or public security. It is about time you grasp this reality. It might be a shock to you, but it is here for the long haul. It will be better for us all to get use to it.

I don't want to get into the Jia and Akrich debate as Metock has clarified the position there where the waters had been very muddy indeed.

I agree with you that Zambrano is here to stay but there are still questions to be answered. It's not clear as to what will happen where for example, one parent resides with the Irish child in Ireland while the other is not in Ireland. What level of support should the absent parent be providing to the child in order to qualify to come within Zambrano to enter Ireland on the basis of having an EU Citizen child? Or even where both parents live in Ireland in separate addresses?

Then there are the even more remote questions raised by Zambrano such as if the ECJ has extended the concept of EU Citizenship so as to remove the requirement of a cross border element in order to rely on EU Treaty rights? The cross border requirement has been chipped away at in other areas of EU law e.g competition law. This was seemingly shot down in McCarthy but I think this issue will arise again in the next two years in the ECJ if not sooner due to the unique facts of McCarthy.

I think there is definitely a requirement for more exact guidance from the ECJ on the decision in Zambrano. From the Member States point of view, they will be doing everything to argue that Zambrano must be interpreted very restrictively.