Irish law so unfair

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble, If I understand correct, your only point in all you wrote was that
"the principles of EU law as seen in the free movement do not apply" ?

Well, Unless there is a link with another EU state, either by Dual
citizenship or by exercising a treaty right, an Irish Citizen may
not claim EU privileges granted under EU jurisdiction.

However this does not prevent Ireland itself, under its own jurisdiction
from implementing equality and justice. And granting these EU privileges
to Irish Citizens in purely internal situations. Similar to how Italy does it.
When Ireland decides to discriminate against Irish Citizens in purely
internal situations, and treat their own citizens worse, this is called
reverse discrimination, and this is unfair and unjust.

The EU rights that are denied to Irish Citizens and their family by this
reverse discrimination include rights to travel, rights to family
reunification, and the right not to be discriminated against.

Furthermore, walrusgumble, please note, Ireland is one of the few
states in the EU, that implements such reverse discrimination against its own.
The EU states that implement reverse discrimination tend to
be Old Empire states such as the Britain, Germany, Denmark, Holland,
I guess for the historical reason that they didn't want their new
coloured subjects coming back to the motherland.

Whereas, countries that look after their own, tend to be countries
with a long emigration history such as Italy.
Ireland has switched. And this betrayal involved quite a bit of lies.
http://irelandsreversediscrimination.wo ... odonoghue/

The reverse discrimination which we now have, did not get legislative approval because
of all these lies and deceit.

thanks for the lecture

I am referring to those who do not hold another citizenship of another EU State that they have Irish only. That was the context which I believe the op which i was replying to meant, as seen in the Moylan case. Many Irish people (well a good percentage, may not have citizenship of another eu state eg Britain)

But yes, good point about Dual citizenship. You are correct they could still (even if they never lived in the country of their second citizenship) use eu law and be treated like an eu citizen from another country if they are entitled to eu citizenship of another country eg if their parent(s) were eg british or french. I thought that would be pretty obvious without having to state that. Again, I was strictly referring to the post I replied to which made no mention of dual citizenship

again, you would not have needed to go to the trouble of producing such a good reply if you read my post in full. I referred to the important case of Carpenter v UK and as many others mentioned, Singh (i am in no doubt you know or are aware of these cases)

Again yes, Irish jurisidiction can and often do give rights to non eu's in a family relationship with Irish. But, in reality, it can be 50 - 50 compared to absolute EU law, in Ireland as you know, there is no statutory provisions for family reunification, and the minister has discretion (so long as its proportionate) If i had dual citizenship and I met an non eu partner, whether legal or not in the state, I know which law heading I would want to fall under, I would imagine you know which one is more favourable.

Again, if you are not exercising your EU rights or do not hold EU citizenship, you fall within domestic law. EU law is not applicable and EU law (bar say ECHR or if you see Carpenter which dealt with a british national who resided in britain with his wife but could show he provided services in central europe) may not be applicable. What other countries do under their domestic laws is not relevant bar just supportive. So EU would need to but out here if no traces of EU is active (unless they rely on Singh etc). We have Treaties every 2-3 years which one way or another give more and more competence to the EU over immigration laws and rights of third country nationals. Often countries like Ireland get opt out clauses. THe cases are put before Irish people (and would be put before other countries if they believed in democracy) if there were clauses preventing a country from controlling non eu law related immigration policies it would possibly be loss (ie no one wants to be dictated by Brussels about matters that don't effect eu law - don't for one second try and refute that)

However, I must say, the Minister must be proportionate and decide in line with the ECHR. If they were not illegal there would be a good chance of success. Unless there was a lengthy relationship and kids, I would be afraid the Minister might use the many cited and much misunderstood ECtHR cases to support them. In reality, though the Minister may have a hard time denying a spouse residency to an Irish citizen. He will need to give sufficent reasons why it would be against the common good.

as for yoru take on Irish law, don't start spouting out that crap, you clearly no little or nothing about Irish law. THe right to travel? really? we had Supreme Court cases dealing with this. Ireland never had an empire. THough I acknowledge it was part of the British Empire and hand its hand in blood in places like India and South Africa, you can't put Ireland within the same bracket as those countries. AH the race issue as always. I am sure you have seen how SOuth Africans have dealt with people from Zimbabwe and Mosambique in recent years. Colour of skin has got nothing to do with Irish policy. If the relationship is legit an Irish person should not have too much trouble getting their spouse and children(who will be Irish anyway) to reside in Ireland. Unless you can clearly show that other family members of the non eu family are part of the family unit (eg spouses mothter) and are dependent on the Irish person, such family reunification is taking the piss.

France, UK and even Belgium have long colonial history with certain contintents. Ireland does not. Those former colonies are their problem not Irelands. You reap what you sow (I accept what you are saying about this though) Ireland has no responsibility to these countries. Ireland , like any other country looks after their own first (very badly I might add) However, if there is a relationship with an Irish citizen, they may get it. so what are you on about. If EU law is not applicable, an immigrant can at least make an application for a work permit. Ireland use to have a very generous law on Irish citizenship until it was abused (much to authorities fault)

Point here, Ireland are not trying to be dearly beloved about it. If EU law does not apply they are entitled to apply their own policies. Sorry, but no country has an open door policy. It can only take in what they can afford eg availability of jobs etc. THats the cold hard reality

By the way, in your country, what do they do? (I would like to know out of interest, you don't have to tell me the country)

[acme4242]

there is no statutory provisions for family reunification,

you see this statement, with is the same as what Dermot Ahern regurgitated, is at odds with what the Fianna Fáil Minister of Justice John O'Donoghue said in the Dail while he riped post nuptial citizenship from the Irish Family
So who is lying, the Former Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice or the current Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice .

http://www.gov.ie/committees-00/c-justi ... efault.htm

There are well established immigration procedures which secure the admission of non-national spouses of Irish nationals

The present immigration arrangements recognise the special position of non-national spouses of Irish citizens. Such spouses, regardless of their nationality, There are no immigration limitations operating to inhibit non-national spouses seeking to come to the State.

In the immigration and residence Bill which is being drafted in the Department at present to replace the entirely outdated and inadvisedly named Aliens Act and its associated orders with a modern and sensible code of immigration law, the immigration status of non-national spouses of Irish citizens will be reaffirmed.

[acme4242]

as for yoru take on Irish law, don't start spouting out that crap, you clearly no little or nothing about Irish law. THe right to travel? really? we had Supreme Court cases dealing with this

Em.. I will ignore this pointless personal attack, and address what I assume is a question of sorts about how the Reverse discrimination affects travel for Irish Citizens and their family. I stated earlier that the EU rights that are denied to Irish Citizens and their family include rights to travel.

Perhaps you are confused about a Supreme Court case concerning the restrictions of travel rights for the purpose of pregnancy terminations.
This had nothing (as far as I know) to do with current reverse discrimination.

The spouse of Irish Citizens resident in Ireland under National Law are issued with a STAMP-4 in their passport, usually for only 1 year, depending on the discretion of the Garda. Its validity is limited to the expiry date of the passport.. The STAMP-4 is useless for travel, either to other EU states, or back into Ireland. This causes unnecessary restriction of travel for the Irish family, as visas must be sought for EU travel, apparently even to travel to the north of Ireland. And furthermore, believe it or not, even an Irish re-entry visa, must be obtained to travel back into the Republic for Irish Family already holding an Irish resident permit.

The spouse of other EU citizens resident in Ireland are given EU privileges and are issued with a 4EUFam card, for 5 years The Card is separate from the passport, and must by EU directive 2004/38/EC be valid for 5 years, regardless of expiry date of passport, This 4EUFam card exempts the holder from:

* All other EU visas
* Irish Re-Entry visa
* Having their passport stamped at passport control.

However other Member states, to avoid possible discrimination, grant their own citizens families at least the same rights as EU families, if not more, granting 4EUFam cards to their own Allowing freedom of movement to their own family. For example Portugal. Under Portuguese National Law Article 3º, n.º 5 of the Act n.º 37/2006, (Transpose of EU directive 2004/38/EC), the regulations of this law applicable to family members are extendable to family members of citizens of Portuguese nationality, regardless of their nationality., thereby removing reverse discrimination, and allowing freedom of movement to Portuguese families.

For the Italians, Article 23 of 30/2007 says “The provisions of this Legislative Decree, if more favourable, apply to the families of Italian citizensâ€

[Ben]

Hi acme4242,

must by EU directive 2004/38/EC be valid for 5 years, regardless of expiry date of passport

Could you quote which parts of the Directive you are referring to?

[acme4242]

Hi acme4242,

must by EU directive 2004/38/EC be valid for 5 years, regardless of expiry date of passport

Could you quote which parts of the Directive you are referring to?

Hi Ben, I'm referring to Article 11 and to the fact that the 4EUFAM card expiry date is not tied to the expiry date of the passport.
As some Countries only issue passport for 5 years or even less., this is yet a further restriction on Irish Family members, as unless the issue of stamp-4 and Irish re-entry visa happens to coincide with a new passport, its impossible to get the STAMP-4 and Irish re-entry visa for 5 years, even if the Garda decides off the top of his head to do it.

Article 11
Validity of the residence card
1. The residence card provided for by Article 10(1) shall be valid for five years from the date of
issue or for the envisaged period of residence of the Union citizen, if this period is less than five
years.
2. The validity of the residence card shall not be affected by temporary absences not exceeding six
months a year, or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service or by one
absence of a maximum of twelve consecutive months for important reasons such as pregnancy and
childbirth, serious illness, study or vocational training, or a posting in another Member State or a
third country.

[walrusgumble]

there is no statutory provisions for family reunification,

you see this statement, with is the same as what Dermot Ahern regurgitated, is at odds with what the Fianna Fáil Minister of Justice John O'Donoghue said in the Dail while he riped post nuptial citizenship from the Irish Family
So who is lying, the Former Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice or the current Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice .

http://www.gov.ie/committees-00/c-justi ... efault.htm

There are well established immigration procedures which secure the admission of non-national spouses of Irish nationals

The present immigration arrangements recognise the special position of non-national spouses of Irish citizens. Such spouses, regardless of their nationality, There are no immigration limitations operating to inhibit non-national spouses seeking to come to the State.

In the immigration and residence Bill which is being drafted in the Department at present to replace the entirely outdated and inadvisedly named Aliens Act and its associated orders with a modern and sensible code of immigration law, the immigration status of non-national spouses of Irish citizens will be reaffirmed.

Sir, please find me the specific Irish legistlation that deals with family reunification with the exception of the REfugee Act and European Free Movement Rights. I am referring to the rights of Irish Citizens, residing in Ireland and wish to bring their non eu family to this country. THere is no legislation and thats the big problem.

O'Donohue referred to "procedure". Procedures can either be administrative or based on statute. With administrative, for example the Irish Born Child Scheme 2005, the Minister has quite alot of discretion, some might say too much. Administrative cases might not be successfully challenged in a court (unless there is breaches of constitutional law - note constitutional law rights are not absolute)

All I am saying is, and you would agree with me, depending on one's situation, a family may have a battle on their hands compared to EU citizens. THey might get in ie Spouse, but what happens if it's an adult - over 16 year old son/daughter of the non eu spouse from a previous. marriage? Case law has been tough on family reunification for Irish Citizen Children. When I get a chance I will link the cases I refere to to show you what I mean.

Every one and anyone would want to see reform. With regard to your examples, valid as they are, how do you think a failed asylum seeker or someone with a deportation order might fair if they fall in love and get married to an Irish citizen? THey are the class of people who may have difficulty. Compared to those who enjoy EU law, legal status of the non EU spouse is irrelevant.
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP07000024

look at the link above. now boys and girls, how many times do you think the Minister would use that line!

it legislation that is needed here

[walrusgumble]

as for yoru take on Irish law, don't start spouting out that crap, you clearly no little or nothing about Irish law. THe right to travel? really? we had Supreme Court cases dealing with this

Em.. I will ignore this pointless personal attack, and address what I assume is a question of sorts about how the Reverse discrimination affects travel for Irish Citizens and their family. I stated earlier that the EU rights that are denied to Irish Citizens and their family include rights to travel.

Perhaps you are confused about a Supreme Court case concerning the restrictions of travel rights for the purpose of pregnancy terminations.
This had nothing (as far as I know) to do with current reverse discrimination.

The spouse of Irish Citizens resident in Ireland under National Law are issued with a STAMP-4 in their passport, usually for only 1 year, depending on the discretion of the Garda. Its validity is limited to the expiry date of the passport.. The STAMP-4 is useless for travel, either to other EU states, or back into Ireland. This causes unnecessary restriction of travel for the Irish family, as visas must be sought for EU travel, apparently even to travel to the north of Ireland. And furthermore, believe it or not, even an Irish re-entry visa, must be obtained to travel back into the Republic for Irish Family already holding an Irish resident permit.

The spouse of other EU citizens resident in Ireland are given EU privileges and are issued with a 4EUFam card, for 5 years The Card is separate from the passport, and must by EU directive 2004/38/EC be valid for 5 years, regardless of expiry date of passport, This 4EUFam card exempts the holder from:

* All other EU visas
* Irish Re-Entry visa
* Having their passport stamped at passport control.

However other Member states, to avoid possible discrimination, grant their own citizens families at least the same rights as EU families, if not more, granting 4EUFam cards to their own Allowing freedom of movement to their own family. For example Portugal. Under Portuguese National Law Article 3º, n.º 5 of the Act n.º 37/2006, (Transpose of EU directive 2004/38/EC), the regulations of this law applicable to family members are extendable to family members of citizens of Portuguese nationality, regardless of their nationality., thereby removing reverse discrimination, and allowing freedom of movement to Portuguese families.

For the Italians, Article 23 of 30/2007 says “The provisions of this Legislative Decree, if more favourable, apply to the families of Italian citizensâ€

[acme4242]

walrusgumble, So I hope I made myself understood, even if my English is not that great, about how the recently introduced reverse discrimination has unfairly denied rights to Irish Citizens and their family.
Now, you have raised a few other valid questions along the way. I'm not sure if I'm the best to answer them, but I'll try. Input from others is welcome.

Sir, please find me the specific Irish legistlation that deals with family reunification with the exception of the REfugee Act and European Free Movement Rights.

The answer to this question is in the Irish Constitution.

BUNREACHT NA hIREANN

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Article 41

1 The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2 The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The founders of the Irish State had attempted to protect the Irish family in the Irish Constitution,
from attack from future totalitarian governments, this attempt failed, they worded it too weak.
It became open to corrupt interpretation. words like "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, and superior to all positive law"
was interpreted as it suited by the Irish Dept of Justice as meaning, "no absolute right"

With regard to the reserve discrimination matter, the moylan case dealt with a family member
that was not part of the immdediate family, ie mother of non irish spouse. it did not prevent
the non irish spouse to reside in ireland, that is what o'donoghue was referring to. if you have
not provided solid evidence that the mother is dependant on the family, ie proof of sending money
over to their home country prior to making an application, then how do you expect to succeed?

Incorrect, luckily the Moylan Family married before John O'Donoghue took away post nuptial citizenship, Mrs Moylan is an Irish Citizen.
If they had married after JOD, the DOJ could have deported both the wife and mother in-law at the same time. Current policy says
genuine marriage and familyhood gives no right of entry or residence in Ireland. Familyhood now means nothing. However till now
Gardai have restrained themselves to "Fields of Athenry" cases where the Irish family member has been a failed asylum seeker or has
committed a criminal offence. Oh !! except in this case, where Mrs Moylans mother committed no crime.

It is somewhat shocking how fast Ireland switched from being a warm family oriented culture, to a cold, dark hearted, ver are your papers.
Why should any Irishman born'n'bred, have to go cap in hand to a self-serving so called Minister for Justice begging for the
right to have his own family live in his own house ? and what is this about "providing solid evidence that the mother is dependant on the family"
what is that about. So what if the mother has a few bob in the bank and her own private pension, what has that got to do with anything ? Seriously I don't understand.

May I ask, in situations where an Irish citizen and their non Irish spouse
travels together to say anywhere in Europe, to a country where that non
Irish spouse would normally require a visa to enter, do the authorities
put a visa stamp or endoresement into the passport of the non Irish person?

Yes they do. Unless the spouse has a card saying "Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen"

If so, isn't this against the Directive?

sorry, I don't know. But I think it is a good question, I agree it is against the spirit of the Directive, as someone with an automatic right of entry, do not require a stamp of approval from anyone.

Would it be against the Directive to require an Non Irish Spouse to get an Irish re entry visa when they are returning from europe to ireland with their irish spouse ?

The Irish Re-entry visa requirement for Irish family already holding an Irish resident permit is against all common sense.

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble, So I hope I made myself understood, even if my English is not that great, about how the recently introduced reverse discrimination has unfairly denied rights to Irish Citizens and their family.
Now, you have raised a few other valid questions along the way. I'm not sure if I'm the best to answer them, but I'll try. Input from others is welcome.

Sir, please find me the specific Irish legistlation that deals with family reunification with the exception of the REfugee Act and European Free Movement Rights.

The answer to this question is in the Irish Constitution.

BUNREACHT NA hIREANN

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Article 41

1 The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2 The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The founders of the Irish State had attempted to protect the Irish family in the Irish Constitution,
from attack from future totalitarian governments, this attempt failed, they worded it too weak.
It became open to corrupt interpretation. words like "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, and superior to all positive law"
was interpreted as it suited by the Irish Dept of Justice as meaning, "no absolute right"

With regard to the reserve discrimination matter, the moylan case dealt with a family member
that was not part of the immdediate family, ie mother of non irish spouse. it did not prevent
the non irish spouse to reside in ireland, that is what o'donoghue was referring to. if you have
not provided solid evidence that the mother is dependant on the family, ie proof of sending money
over to their home country prior to making an application, then how do you expect to succeed?

Incorrect, luckily the Moylan Family married before John O'Donoghue took away post nuptial citizenship, Mrs Moylan is an Irish Citizen.
If they had married after JOD, the GNIB could have deported both the wife and mother in-law at the same time. Current policy says
genuine marriage and familyhood gives no right of entry or residence in Ireland. Familyhood now means nothing. However till now
Gardai have restrained themselves to "Fields of Athenry" cases where the Irish family member has been a failed asylum seeker or has
committed a criminal offence. Oh !! except in this case, where Mrs Moylans mother committed no crime.

It is somewhat shocking how fast Ireland switched from being a warm family oriented culture, to a cold, dark hearted, ver are your papers.
Why should any Irishman born'n'bred, have to go cap in hand to a self-serving so called Minister for Justice begging for the
right to have his own family live in his own house ? and what is this about "providing solid evidence that the mother is dependant on the family"
what is that about. So what if the mother has a few bob in the bank and her own private pension, what has that got to do with anything ? Seriously I don't understand.

May I ask, in situations where an Irish citizen and their non Irish spouse
travels together to say anywhere in Europe, to a country where that non
Irish spouse would normally require a visa to enter, do the authorities
put a visa stamp or endoresement into the passport of the non Irish person?

Yes they do. Unless the spouse has a card saying "Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen"

If so, isn't this against the Directive?

sorry, I don't know. But I think it is a good question, I agree it is against the spirit of the Directive, as someone with an automatic right of entry, do not require a stamp of approval from anyone.

Would it be against the Directive to require an Non Irish Spouse to get an Irish re entry visa when they are returning from europe to ireland with their irish spouse ?

The Irish Re-entry visa requirement for Irish family already holding an Irish resident permit is against all common sense.

Do your self a favour, actually pick up books on the Irish Constitution and Irish Politics. THere are a number of parageaphs there that are pure nonsencial. It was the Irish COurts that interpreted that not all rights are absolute. Even Article 8 of ECHR is not absolute. RIghts have to be balanced between the individual and the rest of society.

article 41 was always a narrow based article by the writtters and in context of the time. it was based an marriage and remains based on marriage. it says noting about extended family members nor did it ever. As for totalatrian government. seriously, as bad as they were, they were no Russia. People had access to the courts. The 1960's brought serious changes in Irish law from the court room. Wording it too weak, ha yeah, I don't think so, but outdated yes

ITs the Irish Courts who interpreted that not all rights are absolute. Not the politicans

THe issue regarding Moylan, just because post nup citizenship was abolished it does not mean non irish spouse will be refused residency by the department of justice (stop referring to the GNIB, they have no power and are clueless) Moylan dealt with an application for residency of a family member other than wife/husband or child. "Solid evidence of dependency", that was a helpful suggesting of how to succeed in a case like Moylan. If you say a parrticular family member is dependant, it maybe possible to prove if the family were looking after her whilst she was at home (eg organising her health care etc, sending money over) Could you imagine the US allowing allow naturalised citizens from say Ireland or Mexico being allowed to bring over grannies uncles etc simply because they are getting old? Mrs Moylan did quite alright without her mother for 3-7 years you know. (I must qualify this, I believed in this instance, this should never have gone to court because the minister could have granted residency. They were never going to be a burden to the State. However, as it did go to court, there was only ever going to be one result as it would have given an expectation to other families )

[acme4242]

Do your self a favour, actually pick up books on the Irish Constitution and Irish Politics. THere are a number of parageaphs there that are pure nonsencial. It was the Irish COurts that interpreted that not all rights are absolute. Even Article 8 of ECHR is not absolute. RIghts have to be balanced between the individual and the rest of society.

Oh I have read the cases, the question is have you ?... they are very narrow in scope, hand picked cases, all involving male spouse who faced earlier deportation. and the Judge agreed with the Dept of Justice.

Oh, and here is some reading for you, as a little education and manners
would do you no harm.
http://acme.posterous.com/what-article- ... eally-mean

Behind these competing views of law and human
rights, there is a set of philosophical assumptions. The
Marxist/socialist thinking held that the institutions of
capitalism were socially constructed and would
wither away. In 1917 in Russia the state abolished
marriage and the family, as well as gender roles.
Within a few years, appalled at the social chaos, the
government revived marriage and the family. Although
communism now belongs to the past, some of its ideas
remain popular in western academic circles, especially
in the social sciences.
This is the context of the battle over the meaning of
marriage and the family.

[walrusgumble]

Do your self a favour, actually pick up books on the Irish Constitution and Irish Politics. THere are a number of parageaphs there that are pure nonsencial. It was the Irish COurts that interpreted that not all rights are absolute. Even Article 8 of ECHR is not absolute. RIghts have to be balanced between the individual and the rest of society.

Oh I have read the cases, the question is have you ?... they are very narrow in scope, hand picked cases, all involving male spouse who faced earlier deportation. and the Judge agreed with the Dept of Justice.

Oh, and here is some reading for you, as a little education and manners
would do you no harm.
http://acme.posterous.com/what-article- ... eally-mean

Behind these competing views of law and human
rights, there is a set of philosophical assumptions. The
Marxist/socialist thinking held that the institutions of
capitalism were socially constructed and would
wither away. In 1917 in Russia the state abolished
marriage and the family, as well as gender roles.
Within a few years, appalled at the social chaos, the
government revived marriage and the family. Although
communism now belongs to the past, some of its ideas
remain popular in western academic circles, especially
in the social sciences.
This is the context of the battle over the meaning of
marriage and the family.

Your clearly being selective here yourself


Listen. I am referring to case law long before Jimmi and Ademola ever graced this country!!!!!!!! It was LONG BEFORE immigration ever became a matter conscience to any one in ireland regarding whether or not Constitutional rights are absolute. That is all I am referring to. You can't even answer my point on Artilce 8 (2), which let me add, there is more caselaw relating to family life than just immigration and threat to the break up of family. I would be very surprised if you were ignorant to that (I doubt you are btw) To be honest, I was not evening thinking about immigration when I made that comment, I was considering some more relevant (in my opinion cases eg TD v Min for Education and Sinnott v Min for Education)

If you are referring specifically to the cases involving fathers/mothers of citizen children, jesus, I would accept that the Judges were running with the Minister. But, it was not always like that. 1990 Fajunu (which if I am correct, Senior COunsel for the APplicant was Michael McDowell former Justice Minister) noted where families had a lengthy period of time in ireland it would be very difficult to deal with deporting them. However, the 2003 case is not knew, there was a case in 1986 that suggested that parents could, in some cases be sent home. Things had changed dramactically, no matter how you want to paint it. the dog on the streets saw the changes and did not like it. This was manifested in a referendum in 2004 (ie the reason why people wanted the citizenship laws changed)

now when people actually realise what arguments don't work (any more) and avoid getting emotional (in fairness, if i was in yer shoes, i wouldn't blame you, then, and only then, can effective change be argued successfully.

It will seriously depend on the facts of a particular case. Maybe in time, there would be a stronger case than Moylan before the court.

[walrusgumble]

Do your self a favour, actually pick up books on the Irish Constitution and Irish Politics. THere are a number of parageaphs there that are pure nonsencial. It was the Irish COurts that interpreted that not all rights are absolute. Even Article 8 of ECHR is not absolute. RIghts have to be balanced between the individual and the rest of society.

Oh I have read the cases, the question is have you ?... they are very narrow in scope, hand picked cases, all involving male spouse who faced earlier deportation. and the Judge agreed with the Dept of Justice.

Oh, and here is some reading for you, as a little education and manners
would do you no harm.
http://acme.posterous.com/what-article- ... eally-mean

Behind these competing views of law and human
rights, there is a set of philosophical assumptions. The
Marxist/socialist thinking held that the institutions of
capitalism were socially constructed and would
wither away. In 1917 in Russia the state abolished
marriage and the family, as well as gender roles.
Within a few years, appalled at the social chaos, the
government revived marriage and the family. Although
communism now belongs to the past, some of its ideas
remain popular in western academic circles, especially
in the social sciences.
This is the context of the battle over the meaning of
marriage and the family.

Why are you showing me a report form the Law Commission? I am very very aware of the contents of same and the need for change in relation to Artilce 41 and 42. What has that got to do with immigration?

A little education?. You are some so and so, you would do well to stick within the context of the discussion, maybe avoid talking about things that appear to be over your head or your apparent inability to understand or wish to understand the laws of a certain country without letting emotions seep in, would be a start

. Until the recommendations of an unelected groups of people are heeded by the Dail, none of this means alot, even in front of a judge who is bound by precedent, unless there are good reasons for move away from it. Most people are more interested in getting results, not having a debate, no matter how brilliant, before a judge who has no power to do anything. When we refer to the "traditional view" of the family unit, no one is referring to any ones nationality at all! by the way, that report says very very little on immigration issues, so why put it up?

I am very sorry to burst your bubble, BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER COULD ONE SAY THAT IRELAND WAS REMOTELY SOCIALIST OR EVEN COMMUNIST (pitty to be honest - re socialist), even with James Connolly. The Irish consitutional definition comes from primarily the Catholic - Christian - Judasim teachings, which needs, obviously to expand to meet today's defintion of family. I must say though, even the Catholic Church do not really (well the grassroot layeity and priests accpet of believe in the traditional notion of "family unit")

If the recommendations of the Law Reform which were made in 1996! were before the people in a referendum, very very very very few people would stop the constitution from changing.

THe laws do not stop the recongition of a person to consider X,Y and Z from considering them to be a member of a family unit, even with the outdated defintion of family, this can be seen in an immigration context with the minister considering applications for partners from a durable relationship. Artilce 8 also does not stop this.

However, no matter how worthy you putting up a report that SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, this is not at this time the law. Look at the Irish caselaw and legislation (still despite many many ECtHR cases regarding unmarried fathers and their rights to their children or even same sex couples)

From an immigration persepective, in SOME cases (not all) the State will be entitled to ignore (if you like) the right of family to reside in Ireland. I am not saying, by the way this is right (if you read previous posts about this 2 years ago about reserve discrimination and the Irish position, you would clealry note that) BTW, even with the old traditional notion of family unit, it does nothing to deal with an immigrant, in fact, with a married couple it helps an argument. But there are other articles (in particular Artilce 40, that require consideration - if I can recall, many of the Christian Churches were against an admendment to the citizenship rules)

With regard to immigration, there is a difference (and you will agree with me) between human rights (ie doing the right thing) and politics/political policy (ie controlling immigration - which can be unfair, harsh and worse, arbitrary)

Surely, you will understand that a non irish family (with exception of child) who have resided in Ireland (eg like Dimbo or Fajununu) for a lenthty period of time would be considered on a different basis as to a family who are here for barely 1-2 years (eg Lobe) You have to treat like with like. In the Moylan situation, the Judge said that the position of the applicants was not similar to that of an EU residing in Ireland. Technically that is correct, but lets face it, it was a cop out of a decision, as you would agree.

Again, I ask, how does your country of origin deal with this situation?


Your looking for manners, you will only get them when your are accurate with some of the unsubstantiated rubbish you spoutted out about this country . eg corrupt interpretation of the constiurion despite reasonably clear intentions by those who wrote it in the 1930's and the case law of the 1930-1950's vs the ability of absolutelty anyone (you has an interest, and sadly alot of money) to challenge the laws freely, unlike some countries; the usual this is dearly beloved etc - sorry the fact that the constition is not absolute effects everyone, irish included

[walrusgumble]

The EU rights that are denied to Irish Citizens and their family by this reverse discrimination include rights to travel, rights to family reunification, and the right not to be discriminated against.[/quote]

THe Irish position regarding reserve discrimination is unfair, its unfair under Irish Law

It is not unfair under EU law because "EU rights" are not being denied because "EU rights" have not kicked in to operate yet.

An Irish citizen and their partner will have little or no problem travelling to another EU country as the Directive will at least make sure that the Non Eu spouse is permitted to enter.

The right to family reunfication: Well unless someone gets married to an Irish citizen with little or now history of a relationship, (fact) it is going to be difficult for that couple to convince the Minister that its genuine. Even if its genuine, where there is little history, the ECtHR case law could back the Minister up. (please not their are some significant Irish caselaw)

If a person marries an British National and both reside in Britian, how easily will they be able to bring over the non Eu national's parents/uncle or aunt/cousin in order to live with them = like in Moylan ie extended family members?

What if it was in the US?

Even the likes of Greece or other country's who did away with reserve discrimination, will non eu spouse's be able to bring their extended family over to live with their family even though they are not residing/exercising EU rights in another country?

I would like to get definte answers here please from results that HAVE occurred in practice.

[acme4242]

THe Irish position regarding reserve discrimination is unfair, its unfair under Irish Law

exactly...this is the whole point of the thread "Irish law so unfair"
we use the EU rights as a reference point to compare.

As regards your question about actual rights of extended family reunification
in other EU states.
I can give you this information from EMN. The European Migration Network
download >here<

If you need more details, you now know who to ask. EMN, I agree this information is incomplete., but its something at least.

In Belgium, in the context of family reunification, a EU-citizen and a Belgian citizen can have a family reunification on almost the same conditions. The only difference is that a Belgian will need for his (grand) parents sufficient means of subsistance and a health insurance covering the risk of his family member, whereas a EU citizen will not need this. Thus, the conditions are slightly more favourable for EU-citizens and their family members.

The Research section of the Belgian Immigration Department would like to have a better view on the situation in the other Member States. They have the following query:
‘Do family members of a national of your Member State have the same/less/more rights than family members mentioned in Directive 2004/38/EC’? In case of differences in the rights, please provide details.’

[walrusgumble]

THe Irish position regarding reserve discrimination is unfair, its unfair under Irish Law

exactly...this is the whole point of the thread "Irish law so unfair"
we use the EU rights as a reference point to compare.

As regards your question about actual rights of extended family reunification
in other EU states.
I can give you this information from EMN. The European Migration Network
download >here<

If you need more details, you now know who to ask. EMN, I agree this information is incomplete., but its something at least.

In Belgium, in the context of family reunification, a EU-citizen and a Belgian citizen can have a family reunification on almost the same conditions. The only difference is that a Belgian will need for his (grand) parents sufficient means of subsistance and a health insurance covering the risk of his family member, whereas a EU citizen will not need this. Thus, the conditions are slightly more favourable for EU-citizens and their family members.

The Research section of the Belgian Immigration Department would like to have a better view on the situation in the other Member States. They have the following query:
‘Do family members of a national of your Member State have the same/less/more rights than family members mentioned in Directive 2004/38/EC’? In case of differences in the rights, please provide details.’

Thanks for the link that pretty much successfully rests your case

finally, some understanding and an effort by you to produce some source to back what you are saying (mind, I still have to dig out the case law i was referring to - but to make it clear, when i said rights under Bunreacht ná héireann are not absolute, i specifically refer to the general position and not regarding immigration at all. Many many many irish citizens have gone (and lost, sadly) to the high court and even supreme court case regarding their rights as a family, as an individual etc one top case TD v Min for Education 2001 - you can find it on bailii)

If we want you debate on matters, even if i don't personally agree (which honestly, I very rarely actually give my personal view) at least get the basis of the argument correct. If not, one will be laughed at. Immigration, because of the ever evolving nature, it very hard to succeed in court. At least if the basic grounds and knowing what argument works or not, then people may see the light. THere is no point standing on a false notion

Under no circumstances do i say, ah the constitution does not protect an Irish man/women from having their non eu spouse here. THat would be nonsense. But unfortunately, in some instances, in the eyes of the minister, there are valid reasons to say no. Its up to the applicant to refute such concerns

On turning to my own opinion. In Moylan, there was never any fear that Mrs Moylan herself was going to be kicked out, and quite rightly. Where the marriage is genuine no one should really determine who an irish man/woman should marry only themselves. (sure she naturalised anyway).

Its a matter of extended family members such as mother, brother, grandparent that, for me causes concern. Granted, if they (Mrs Moylan is Irish so lets remember that) moved across the Irish Sea, exercised their rights and had a copule of bob, its likely they could then get the mother over. Yeah its crazy. But EU law is there to make sure barriers are not crossed in one's ability to move freely around Europe. The provision applies as equally to the Non EU spouse as the Eu spouse. But in a small island, where sadly they have to look after their own and be able to afford to take in these people the Minister is concerned with opening floodgates and potential future burdens to the state. THere is no point taking in these people and then leaving them to rot when they need educational, health services etc. THat would be inhuman. ye all know stories of non nationals who came here, many with modest dreams and goals but their lives turned to hell and slavery. if our system can support the inflow (i am referring to extended family members only, not spouse and children), fine. But ye all know what this country is like

Not all families are going to be able to afford to bring over the mother (maybe the state should clarify the rights to family reunification for naturalised citizens in legislation, as they are kind of in a different class than IRish born citizens - anyone who made an application under IBC will be fully aware that they had no legitimate right to family reunification, despite an irish family member)

Unless there is factual dependency ,regarding family members other than spouse and children,of any particular form not just money, and evidence that the person in Ireland has actually provided for the parent in some way (eg transferring money etc) then the Minister may, quite rightly refuse. if there is genuine dependency, then fair enough.

why do i take this view? well, a adult nephew/niece may be just as dependent as an elderly member. What happens if nephew gets in, they will possibly want to bring their own family over. We are a small island (i accept fully, this line can fall flat on its arse considering similar sized EU States. However, what about the adult child who was left behind and has not seen their parent for a number of years. assumingly they have their own lives. Can you say that they are dependent? In that specific situation, does Directive 2004/38 EC allow reunification for the adult child?



One thing is for sure, cases like Moylan will not go away.