Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[9jeirean]

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.

Can you point out any post or thread where you and I had engaged in discussion about the McCarthy case? Stop spewing rubbish here. If you can not hold an argument against the poster who you are responding to then get off the computer. Your tendency to lump up different posters and inability to separate different points raised by different posters not only betray your stereotypical mindset but your gross idiocy. If you think I have made any post or response to any issue to which you need to respond, please quote same rather than gross assumption and suggestions that you can't substantiate. You haven't realized that it is people's prerogative to decide what they are interested in discussing or not, have you? There are many, old and new on the forum who will benefit from advice and support on real life immigration issues/problems and I chose to give those priorities over your kind of pointless pedantry and ego trip. So please cut off my username from your references henceforth, unless I specifically address you in my post.

9jeirean.

[walrusgumble]

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.

Can you point out any post or thread where you and I had engaged in discussion about the McCarthy case? Stop spewing rubbish here. If you can not hold an argument against the poster who you are responding to then get off the computer. Your tendency to lump up different posters and inability to separate different points raised by different posters not only betray your stereotypical mindset but your gross idiocy. If you think I have made any post or response to any issue to which you need to respond, please quote same rather than gross assumption and suggestions that you can't substantiate. You haven't realized that it is people's prerogative to decide what they are interested in discussing or not, have you? There are many, old and new on the forum who will benefit from advice and support on real life immigration issues/problems and I chose to give those priorities over your kind of pointless pedantry and ego trip. So please cut off my username from your references henceforth, unless I specifically address you in my post.

9jeirean.

Ah, actually, 9 Eireann, I do sincerely apologise for mentioning you, it was Morris himself/herself that stated this.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... c&start=80

Your all the same though and say pretty much the same thing, so it worth addressing you all in the same post. But ok, I get your point. That is fair comment.

However, I can't but help but laugh at the rest of your comments. You should practice what you preach yourself, ie the whole idea of actually hold an argument, regardless of who you are referring to.Help me to recall, what about your nuggest of genious when we were talking about Zambrano? You know, the one around Easter time where you had a funky Zambrano pub sign pasted on. you made a mistake, an important one for your argument, regarding the dates of a post.

But again, fair comment and on this occassion, I do sincerely apologise.

[Muttsnuts]

took it to ECJ,Germany will be the member state that took it to ECJ simple answer no need for d long explanation.Mr Mutsnut I do not disagree with your view on Zambrano which is exactly what i am interested on,not d political story but ur view is different 4rm Mr Walsgrumble who started involving the Romanians n Bulgarians then to Asylum seeker,Economy blabla.As for d main ? 4 Zambrano (1 parent having legal status n d other not having)U should b aware that was part of Dermot's/Govt. domestic law n thanks

I know I'm being a little pedantic here but I have to advise you that you are incorrect when you say that it was Ireland who took the Metock case to the ECJ. Ireland did not want the Metock case to go to the ECJ and if the government had any say in the matter, it would not have gone to he ECJ. Ireland and most other States in the EU argued against Mr Metock's points. I am not giving you the "political story", I am giving you facts of the matter. It may be simpler to say Ireland sent the case to the ECJ but it would also be incorrect.

As for your last sentence. I have no idea what you're saying there about Zambrano and domestic law.

[Morrisj]

Lovely infact 2 b honest this the best post i ve seen from u n becos i will tel u my nationality,Irish by birth,American(father's nationality)Nigerian(mother's nationality)even heard me grandparents were from Australia n China respectively,happy now?ha d only thing i said about Macarthy was..it shouldn't ve be taken to d court not because it doesnt have effect on me as u said lol.Adult Eu dnt need their parents in order 4 dem to enjoy their freemovement n right?But d Eu minors need their parents for such

[Morrisj]

so u c,Zambrano is kinda diff 4rm Macarthy no conflict except 4 genuine clarification regardn Zambrano.I repeat nt all Asylum seekers r liers,dnt use d deeds of d fake asylum seekers to judge genuine Asylum seekers all because they r from same Country.I was reading an opposition on Kidare street,There was a lady deciding d refugee appl. and of every 1800 applications only 5 were granted status,enquiries were made regarding her decisions by TDs,the department found out she was nt even following d Dept's

[Morrisj]

She didn use d Dept's Administrative policy when deciding those cases.Nw listen i ve no problem if same inquiry was made in d case where she was granting all applicants refugee status bt d problem i ve is,tho she got fired,what about d genuine applications she wrongly decided?perharps some of d applicants were deported back to d risk n torture they were avoiding and all they did to the lady was to get her fired..God help those applicants.D immigration bill was fair u fink? ok read carefully

[Morrisj]

If u think d bill was fair and Shatter doesnt even agree with it,r u indirectly saying Shatter is not doing d right thing ammendn it or u just bothered about the climate of d Economy?u said non eu spouse married to Irish have no problem getting status except for those with prev.deportationorder,thats d biggest lie.u knw what u r judging from d time u were with d Dept so i really dnt blame u FYI ur man Dermot changed all that.Non eu spouse of Irish with no prev.deportation order,Asylum or nt r on stamp 2,3

[Morrisj]

or they wer deported while 4 those with prev.deportation order(asylum or nt)were deported so called minister's discretion,come on man i ve seen loadza non eu spouse of Irish(even with kids)n they were deported.Tell me this can the non eu spouse(failed asylum seeker or nt)of a British in Ireland be deported except on Public policy,health n security?no they cnt.I agree ECHR said choice of residence shouldn b respected i.e if there is no insurmountable obstacle,how do expect those Irish spouse 2 relocate?

[Morrisj]

i have seen a situation where d Irish spouse actually moved to d country of his non eu spouse and he was kidnapped,what baffled me most,even with what happend to d Irish dude,it took d Dept 2 years to revoke d deportation made against his non eu spouse.
is it that youse dnt ve love n respect for ur fellow Irish or u just dnt have love/resp. for d Irish citizens that r black or d irish citizens that r family member of blacks,asylum seekers and non eu?Zambrano didn favour just d asylum seekers as u said

[Morrisj]

i have seen a situation where d Irish spouse actually moved to d country of his non eu spouse and he was kidnapped,what baffled me most,even with what happend to d Irish dude,it took d Dept 2 years to revoke d deportation made against his non eu spouse.
is it that youse dnt ve love n respect for ur fellow Irish or u just dnt have love/resp. for d Irish citizens that r black or d irish citizens that r family member of blacks,asylum seekers and non eu?Zambrano didn favour just d asylum seekers as u said

[Obie]

I know I'm being a little pedantic here but I have to advise you that you are incorrect when you say that it was Ireland who took the Metock case to the ECJ. Ireland did not want the Metock case to go to the ECJ and if the government had any say in the matter, it would not have gone to he ECJ.

Ireland was in support of the preliminary ruling decision of the court, they never objected to it

53. Accordingly, I have determined that I should not now simply follow the decision in S.K. and Anor. v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors. on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC and validity of article 3(2) of the 2006 Regulations but rather seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC. As observed by the Advocate General in his opinion in Jia (at para. 38), the Court of Justice case law on the Community instruments repealed or amended by Directive 2004/38/EC “is not entirely free from ambiguityâ€

[Muttsnuts]

I know I'm being a little pedantic here but I have to advise you that you are incorrect when you say that it was Ireland who took the Metock case to the ECJ. Ireland did not want the Metock case to go to the ECJ and if the government had any say in the matter, it would not have gone to he ECJ.

Ireland was in support of the preliminary ruling decision of the court, they never objected to it

53. Accordingly, I have determined that I should not now simply follow the decision in S.K. and Anor. v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors. on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC and validity of article 3(2) of the 2006 Regulations but rather seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC. As observed by the Advocate General in his opinion in Jia (at para. 38), the Court of Justice case law on the Community instruments repealed or amended by Directive 2004/38/EC “is not entirely free from ambiguityâ€

[Obie]

I think i will have to agree with you on this one as well. The key is, a reference for preliminary ruling was made, and thankfully the offensive and unlawful Regulations 3(2) was discarded.

I must emphasise that the court was not satisfied by the SK precedent which supports 3(2).

Anyway, these are trivial issues which we need not disagree over. I am pleased to say we see eye to eye on the big issues which are of utmost relevance.

[walrusgumble]

so u c,Zambrano is kinda diff 4rm Macarthy no conflict except 4 genuine clarification regardn Zambrano.I repeat nt all Asylum seekers r liers,dnt use d deeds of d fake asylum seekers to judge genuine Asylum seekers all because they r from same Country.I was reading an opposition on Kidare street,There was a lady deciding d refugee appl. and of every 1800 applications only 5 were granted status,enquiries were made regarding her decisions by TDs,the department found out she was nt even following d Dept's

you might want to refer to the unhcr guide book.while your at it, check out the stats of the popular countries where these people come from & the oceans of country of origin info for those countries.some coincidents that so many where tribal princes,members of cults,scared of ju ju magic?i never made any adverse comment on geuine asylum seekers.have you ever read applicants transcripts?no you haven't.its very weary when political a.s. can't answer simple q about their political groups

[walrusgumble]

so u c,Zambrano is kinda diff 4rm Macarthy no conflict except 4 genuine clarification regardn Zambrano.I repeat nt all Asylum seekers r liers,dnt use d deeds of d fake asylum seekers to judge genuine Asylum seekers all because they r from same Country.I was reading an opposition on Kidare street,There was a lady deciding d refugee appl. and of every 1800 applications only 5 were granted status,enquiries were made regarding her decisions by TDs,the department found out she was nt even following d Dept's

there was a high court case years ago too.provide a link to the recent woman decision maker.the dail have never set out any proper guidelines until european legislation.department are just as much to blame

[walrusgumble]

She didn use d Dept's Administrative policy when deciding those cases.Nw listen i ve no problem if same inquiry was made in d case where she was granting all applicants refugee status bt d problem i ve is,tho she got fired,what about d genuine applications she wrongly decided?perharps some of d applicants were deported back to d risk n torture they were avoiding and all they did to the lady was to get her fired..God help those applicants.D immigration bill was fair u fink? ok read carefully

it is HIGHELY likely that the asylum seeker went to the high court via judicial review,if they succeed got their case reconsidered by a different decision maker.what country's are we talking about?the bill sets out fixing the MAJOR problems that are in existence

[walrusgumble]

If u think d bill was fair and Shatter doesnt even agree with it,r u indirectly saying Shatter is not doing d right thing ammendn it or u just bothered about the climate of d Economy?u said non eu spouse married to Irish have no problem getting status except for those with prev.deportationorder,thats d biggest lie.u knw what u r judging from d time u were with d Dept so i really dnt blame u FYI ur man Dermot changed all that.Non eu spouse of Irish with no prev.deportation order,Asylum or nt r on stamp 2,3

what's fair,immigration rules or asylum rules (which are governed by europe & un)?they are different issues.provide evidence that i am lying!you are wrong!there are quite a few IRISH citizens who have testified themselves on politics.ie & others who succeeded in getting their spouses to stay.i personally helped 4 people,2 of whom where illegal for 3 years but no d/o.last one a decision came 1 1/2 years ago

[walrusgumble]

or they wer deported while 4 those with prev.deportation order(asylum or nt)were deported so called minister's discretion,come on man i ve seen loadza non eu spouse of Irish(even with kids)n they were deported.Tell me this can the non eu spouse(failed asylum seeker or nt)of a British in Ireland be deported except on Public policy,health n security?no they cnt.I agree ECHR said choice of residence shouldn b respected i.e if there is no insurmountable obstacle,how do expect those Irish spouse 2 relocate?

provide full specific facts before generalising and if possible links from media.is it possible some where criminals?irish citizens have no problems relocating.read what the ecthr says!why did they enter marriage expecting to avail of rights that don't even exist?british spouse thats different, eu law applies

[walrusgumble]

i have seen a situation where d Irish spouse actually moved to d country of his non eu spouse and he was kidnapped,what baffled me most,even with what happend to d Irish dude,it took d Dept 2 years to revoke d deportation made against his non eu spouse.
is it that youse dnt ve love n respect for ur fellow Irish or u just dnt have love/resp. for d Irish citizens that r black or d irish citizens that r family member of blacks,asylum seekers and non eu?Zambrano didn favour just d asylum seekers as u said

you seem to see alot of things!!seriously stuff like that gets reported & made public by the left wing & immigration groups.provide links to that incident.why not go to another eu state?twisting things again aren't we?whats colour to do with things?immigration rules apply to all, not just blacks.was your man a citizen at time of marriage & / or d/o?do black people carry a big kick me sign everywhere they go?again,read the ecthr cases

[walrusgumble]

I heard from my mate this morning, that Shatter is unlikely to challenge or go any further with the cases that are in the High Court. I could be wrong, but I trust her reliability

[Muttsnuts]

I think i will have to agree with you on this one as well. The key is, a reference for preliminary ruling was made, and thankfully the offensive and unlawful Regulations 3(2) was discarded.

I must emphasise that the court was not satisfied by the SK precedent which supports 3(2).

Anyway, these are trivial issues which we need not disagree over. I am pleased to say we see eye to eye on the big issues which are of utmost relevance.

Yeah you#re right. No point in getting bogged down in the minute details of it otherwise we could be here all day going back and forth!

[ImmigrationLawyer]

Shatter is unlikely to challenge or go any further with the cases that are in the High Court

what does this mean? The Minister will concede them?

[walrusgumble]

Shatter is unlikely to challenge or go any further with the cases that are in the High Court

what does this mean? The Minister will concede them?

My understanding is that the cases where listed for mention a few days ago. It was announced that the Minister was reviewing the files and was sending out letters to the applicants to request that they make their submissions and send in proofs. Surely most cases that fall within Zambrano will succeed, and making many cases moot, anyway.

My understanding is that he will cave in, as, in fairness to him, he did state in March.

I don't think too many of his staff and lawyers are happy. but hey.

[Obie]

I don't think this is much of a news any way. It simply confirms what Mr Shatters has previously endeavored to do.

There can be no room for maneuver where these people are concerned. They are covered by community law and entitled to residency, and the minister has pledged to abide by the ruling in its entirety

[walrusgumble]

I don't think this is much of a news any way. It simply confirms what Mr Shatters has previously endeavored to do.

There can be no room for maneuver where these people are concerned. They are covered by community law and entitled to residency, and the minister has pledged to abide by the ruling in its entirety

Until the next batch of cases that go before Europe

After looking at the fiasco of the IBC scheme, I expect the department will chicken up. As I believed after Dimbo 2008, I thought that this issue was not finished yet, as some expected. Some of those will be refused and it will be dragged on for ages.