Morrisj wrote:Thanks for giving me an opportunity to ask u 4 clarification
1.Pls cn u clarify what exactly is ur problem with Zambrano Judgment(no lies pls cos i cn refer u back to ur previous comments about Zambrano)
2.can u also clarify if the immigration /residence bill Dermot introduced was fair in respect on how family members of Irish citizens,if u fink its fair and Shatter didn even agree with it& called it Dermot immi./residence bill,what gave u d impression to think e will make a Uturn regarding his statement?
Lies? You and your friends are the only ones who do that. Hyprocisy too. If I can recall from the Dual Citizenship/McCarthy discussion, eiher your good self or another poster, I think 9jEireann finally admitted that they could not care about the judgment as it has no effect on them. It took them ages to get it out of them (ie I had pointed out a number a scenerios of potential discrimination and highlighting that they did not really care but where happy to shout it was not irrelevant, when it clearly was)
1. Problem with Zambrano,
As I have said least
3-4 times on this very thread, it rewards a section of people who have abused the system. It will possibly reward some parents who have had no history of active parenthood as they were not in the country for a period of the child's life. Now again, if the domestic court decided to reverse Lobe, I can live with it.
The second and main problem with Zambrano is that the judgment, without any lawful grounds, interfere's , regardless of how nobably, in an area (ie internal affairs) that the Treaty and secondary legislation does not provide for and even goes further than previous caselaw. There is even little or no legal basis for their argument that the EU is more than rights to free movement to another country. As for the aspiration of EU citizenship being a fundamental right in the future, that is merely a wet dream of the ecj and pro federalists. Member States have publicly refused the notion of a Supranational European Union. The Constitution of the referendum is clear proof. Countries want some control of their soverignity. Unless and until the countries are happy to sign away more soverignity like the new notion of citizenship as aspired by Zambrano, then the ECJ can't interfere.
The third problem with Zambrano is that it unwittingly creates a form of discrimination. If the child is born in a country and is a citizen, the non eu parent can live here regardless of if that parent can support themselves. However, if a child is German and the child's parents were deported from Germany, they only way the parents can live in Ireland is via the case of Chen, which requires self sufficiency. That is discrimination of nationality. There is also discrimination on the basis that a german etc who wants to come to Ireland must comply with the Directive. There is also a current discrimination(though gone in 2014) on single & childless romanians/bulgarians who now want to come to ireland but must have a work permit in order to do so. This is not what the pro eu people wanted.
2. Immigration Residence Bill
The law on family reunification, particularily the law on citizen child is merely a repeat/confirmation of the Supreme Court decision of Lobe. Just the same as the laws in the Directive 2004/38 EC are merely a repeat/confirmation of ECJ caselaw spanning 20 years. The Irish people had a clear reason to wish to change the citizenship laws in 2004 ie to stop incidents like Lobe ever occuring again.
Yes it is fair,
if and only if, the family were only here for no more than a year before the birth of the child and did not have status. The laws created the trend in a reduction (not neccessarily small) in economic immigrants incorrectly using the asylum procees, as oppose to work visa schemes, in order to enter Ireland as there was no incentive. It is also fair that a father who has been out of the child's live for 2-3 years should be allowed to now come and live here,strictly on the basis of the child's citizenship, especially if there is no evidence that the father never supported his family by sending money over.
Regarding people married to Irish nationals, many non eu people WILL get legal status on that basis. If the non eu person has been illegal (and no deportation order) but living in Ireland for over 4 years, and can show that there is a genuine relationship and marriage, via documentary evidence, then it is LIKELY that that non eu citizen WILL STILL GET STATUS!!!! The cases that are reported on the media and court involve couples who only get married only AFTER deportation orders. I think it is fair to refuse, SOME of these. Why be allowed to stay on basis of marriage when they were not allowed to stay in the first place?
Why? The couple knew the risks, the possibility that they may be separated, but they still went ahead with a marriage that they might not have normally gone through so sudden, bar the deportation order. They have thrown themselves at the mercy of the Constitution, which the Irish Courts and the ECtHR themselves have said, one can't do.
3. U Turns and Statements.
Are you referring to the Statement regarding the Zambrano Case?He said that the would go ahead to review all cases that involve citizen children. Fair enough. He suggests, the impression that I got, that he will give status regardless of the findings of the High Court, who have already stated that it wishes to send some cases to ECJ which he should not do (nothing stopping him), unless he brings in legislation. Its an interference of the court's jurisdiction. Also, he ignores the fact that the ECHR and ECJ have set out guidelines in dealing with people who are at risk of deportation due to regular criminal offences, by simply stating that its not our policy to grant those people status. He should have said nothing there and wait until he actually reviews the case and the law. its prejudicial.
He has gone ahead and confirmed that parents on stamp1-2-3 can go ahead and get their new stamps. Well that is fine, no problem, their cases are stronger than even Zambrano. But he has done little, so far on the other cases, which indiciates, that he will now, in fact wait for the court's verdict, as one should do.
Are you referring to the other cases? Did Shatter ever suggest that people who have deportation orders can succeed if they later create families with Irish people? I don't recall. Did Shatter look at the Department of Finanace and Employment stats, as any immigration division does, when making such comments whilst in opposition? How many politicians whilst in opposition ever carry out what they previously promised whilst in opposition? Shatter has the task of convincing a majority Dáil to get his policies passed (not neccessarily difficult) Will he dare do what other politicans, including his own leader, have failed to do and actually have an intelligent and constructive discussion on immigration without any fear from unelected voices frompeople like immigration control or dearly beloved against beloved etc? (he is brave enough). Considering that immigration is reducing and the country is trying to keep their own people from living, will an immigration bill be a priority in this term? (i do not know)
