Deportation order

[daddy]

Excuse me for posting this again, it is because i found some difficulties doing the quote thing, so my post was not clear enough.

Hi daddy,

you can use the "edit" button next to your own posts to change them.

Also, before posting, you can use the "preview" function.

These tools will allow you to experiment a bit, and find out how to make the quotes appear correctly...

Enjoy...

Thanks for that, it seems that i am getting it now, am glad, God bless.

[walrusgumble]

Hi daddy,

The Zambrano case has yet to be decided. One could confidently say it would be out by next spring to summer at the latest. The McCarthy case will follow shortly aswell.


I agree with Cafunke that Ireland should be careful about the way it treats migrants, especially migrant workers, whose contribution strengthens the internal market, which in turns benefits Ireland's bankrupt and hopeless economy .

Without EU, Ireland will not worth a piece of cake.

Now that this exodus is becoming evident, as the jobs are becoming more scarce and life is becoming intolerable, Ireland should look towards attracting more people and not discouraging them.

How could there be a recovery without the workforce. How could the thousands of empty houses in Dublin and other parts of Ireland be filled without people .

A growing body of evidence indicate that emigration is on the increase in Ireland. Net migration is now in the negative. This does not bode well for any nation looking forward to recovery. Perhaps this drunkard politicians don't give a money about recovery, just care about their property developer mates and preserving the Irish Gene pool.

Getting a work force is not the problem. There are over 200,000 looking for work as it is. Many/most are trained to 3rd Level. Its attracting business' or stimulating the current crop in setting up their own business.

I do accept your point though that Ireland does need to be careful on how it treats its immigrants as what comes around goes around and it would not bode well for its so called island of a thousand welcomes. But, frankly, its not places like Africa or Eastern Europe that the Irish will likely turn to away (though, who knows, and it is not the point)

Ireland would be nothing without EU, maybe, but the exact same would be said about most other countries in the Union. The Union signed up by Ireland was based on Economic co-operation, EEC. Its safe to say that the Union of today is greatly different to that pre 1992. Its not what most countries signed up for. If it rejects a treaty, it gets bullied, yet if France/Germany or even Poland speak up every one shuts up. Europe was suppose to be about a unit of countries who enjoy EQUAL Rights and say. Some how, I don't think most EU countries signed up to the opinions of unelected and unaccountable judge makers. (Though in fairness, Directive 2004/38 EC is based on such caselaw)

I do appreciate your somehow sincere contributions in this forum, however, I am suprise sometime with your reasoning. I have a question for you. Is it a sin or illegal for someone to fall in love?, do you have emotions? If you were those children born of non eu mother with eu father, and you were forcefully seperated from your father, how would you feel? Does illegal immigration status on a mother make her or her eu children less human or animals? every law on earth was ment to the benefit of human beigns and not to their detriment. would the same law ment to help the society be used to deprive them of ther basic human rigths as in the case of the eu cildren of non eu mother?. It is hight time we start reasoning properly, we are all humans not animals. what is immigration status to basic human rights of a child. Is Ireland really a democratic society? if yes, then, why would Ireland not have regard to Irish citizen( a child) basic human right and that of his or her father ( Irish citizen). My last comment in this case would be, whomever that is commenting on this issue, please know that a child is involved in this case, as well, a genuine marriage.Thanks.

Of course it is not a sin. But it should not be an absolute expectation that they will be allowed in. They did not have legal status, therefore why should they use the santity of marriage to side step the laws. Not everyone is that honest. Why should a government run their policies by emotion? If a country did, it would be screwed royally. Guidelines and rules are they for a reason. By the way, what I said was not my opinion, but the clear and obvious attitude of the department of justice. I made it clear that it would be quite natural that a person, after so many years who fall into a sitation where they fall in love etc. But, I also made it clear that the department must do more in order to avoid such suitations ever occurring.

Speaking as someone who has been separated from their father for most of my life (father killed whilst on peacekeeping service for UN) you get to a point where it does not effect you. To be honest, with the legal status in the way, i find it entirely irresponsible that they even conceived a child. THey should have known the risks. They should have known full well the risks when getting married. Falling in love is not voluntary but the latter two are. Why rush into it?

One poster suggested that that case was refused on the possible basis that the Irish spouse could not look after her due to money etc. Well then, why should the state do it? If he was european, he would be expected to be working (to do otherwise would be reverse discrimination, one which you lot would jump on, and probably successfully )

As for the child's basic human rights. If the child was expected to live in a country where their human rights would actually be at risk and they could not succeed in seeking help, then yes, ok you are right. But these children are also citizens of those other countries, and have more connection with them than Ireland. Just because you were born in a stable it does not make you a horse. Nigeria is a safe place!!!!!! THeir is no human rights violations. Even the ECHR finds that this is not against the charter. What is the point taking them in when the country is not capable of providing them a job, home and a decent standard of living? The country has its priorities to the Irish themselves, residing EU and current Non EU's to deal with.

The Irish Courts have been clear and consistent on this issue for over one decade.

If the Irish parent was that concerned, he/she would make sure that the child was kept in this state.

We do not live in utopia. So drop the "we are all humans not animals" lark. No one is treating them like animals. She took the risk of coming to Ireland on the basis of claiming asylum. She would have known that the authorities in Europe do not except that Nigeria is a dangerous country with human rights problems. She took that risk, being advised of the risk, and known full well that if she failed she would be returned home. If she wanted to do it properly she should have entered the country legally or at least returned with the point of view of making a visa application. The country should not be held up to emotional ransom. There are no human rights being abused. He could if he really wanted too, go and live in Nigeria. He wants his bread buttered both ways

I will end it on one note, and that is, in this very case, with the facts being exceptional, the minister should not have refused this case and no one would know - thus rid any fear of flood gates

[daddy]

Hi daddy,

The Zambrano case has yet to be decided. One could confidently say it would be out by next spring to summer at the latest. The McCarthy case will follow shortly aswell.


I agree with Cafunke that Ireland should be careful about the way it treats migrants, especially migrant workers, whose contribution strengthens the internal market, which in turns benefits Ireland's bankrupt and hopeless economy .

Without EU, Ireland will not worth a piece of cake.

Now that this exodus is becoming evident, as the jobs are becoming more scarce and life is becoming intolerable, Ireland should look towards attracting more people and not discouraging them.

How could there be a recovery without the workforce. How could the thousands of empty houses in Dublin and other parts of Ireland be filled without people .

A growing body of evidence indicate that emigration is on the increase in Ireland. Net migration is now in the negative. This does not bode well for any nation looking forward to recovery. Perhaps this drunkard politicians don't give a money about recovery, just care about their property developer mates and preserving the Irish Gene pool.

Getting a work force is not the problem. There are over 200,000 looking for work as it is. Many/most are trained to 3rd Level. Its attracting business' or stimulating the current crop in setting up their own business.

I do accept your point though that Ireland does need to be careful on how it treats its immigrants as what comes around goes around and it would not bode well for its so called island of a thousand welcomes. But, frankly, its not places like Africa or Eastern Europe that the Irish will likely turn to away (though, who knows, and it is not the point)

Ireland would be nothing without EU, maybe, but the exact same would be said about most other countries in the Union. The Union signed up by Ireland was based on Economic co-operation, EEC. Its safe to say that the Union of today is greatly different to that pre 1992. Its not what most countries signed up for. If it rejects a treaty, it gets bullied, yet if France/Germany or even Poland speak up every one shuts up. Europe was suppose to be about a unit of countries who enjoy EQUAL Rights and say. Some how, I don't think most EU countries signed up to the opinions of unelected and unaccountable judge makers. (Though in fairness, Directive 2004/38 EC is based on such caselaw)

I do appreciate your somehow sincere contributions in this forum, however, I am suprise sometime with your reasoning. I have a question for you. Is it a sin or illegal for someone to fall in love?, do you have emotions? If you were those children born of non eu mother with eu father, and you were forcefully seperated from your father, how would you feel? Does illegal immigration status on a mother make her or her eu children less human or animals? every law on earth was ment to the benefit of human beigns and not to their detriment. would the same law ment to help the society be used to deprive them of ther basic human rigths as in the case of the eu cildren of non eu mother?. It is hight time we start reasoning properly, we are all humans not animals. what is immigration status to basic human rights of a child. Is Ireland really a democratic society? if yes, then, why would Ireland not have regard to Irish citizen( a child) basic human right and that of his or her father ( Irish citizen). My last comment in this case would be, whomever that is commenting on this issue, please know that a child is involved in this case, as well, a genuine marriage.Thanks.

Of course it is not a sin. But it should not be an absolute expectation that they will be allowed in. They did not have legal status, therefore why should they use the santity of marriage to side step the laws. Not everyone is that honest. Why should a government run their policies by emotion? If a country did, it would be screwed royally. Guidelines and rules are they for a reason. By the way, what I said was not my opinion, but the clear and obvious attitude of the department of justice. I made it clear that it would be quite natural that a person, after so many years who fall into a sitation where they fall in love etc. But, I also made it clear that the department must do more in order to avoid such suitations ever occurring.

Speaking as someone who has been separated from their father for most of my life (father killed whilst on peacekeeping service for UN) you get to a point where it does not effect you. To be honest, with the legal status in the way, i find it entirely irresponsible that they even conceived a child. THey should have known the risks. They should have known full well the risks when getting married. Falling in love is not voluntary but the latter two are. Why rush into it?

One poster suggested that that case was refused on the possible basis that the Irish spouse could not look after her due to money etc. Well then, why should the state do it? If he was european, he would be expected to be working (to do otherwise would be reverse discrimination, one which you lot would jump on, and probably successfully )

As for the child's basic human rights. If the child was expected to live in a country where their human rights would actually be at risk and they could not succeed in seeking help, then yes, ok you are right. But these children are also citizens of those other countries, and have more connection with them than Ireland. Just because you were born in a stable it does not make you a horse. Nigeria is a safe place!!!!!! THeir is no human rights violations. Even the ECHR finds that this is not against the charter. What is the point taking them in when the country is not capable of providing them a job, home and a decent standard of living? The country has its priorities to the Irish themselves, residing EU and current Non EU's to deal with.

The Irish Courts have been clear and consistent on this issue for over one decade.

If the Irish parent was that concerned, he/she would make sure that the child was kept in this state.

We do not live in utopia. So drop the "we are all humans not animals" lark. No one is treating them like animals. She took the risk of coming to Ireland on the basis of claiming asylum. She would have known that the authorities in Europe do not except that Nigeria is a dangerous country with human rights problems. She took that risk, being advised of the risk, and known full well that if she failed she would be returned home. If she wanted to do it properly she should have entered the country legally or at least returned with the point of view of making a visa application. The country should not be held up to emotional ransom. There are no human rights being abused. He could if he really wanted too, go and live in Nigeria. He wants his bread buttered both ways

I will end it on one note, and that is, in this very case, with the facts being exceptional, the minister should not have refused this case and no one would know - thus rid any fear of flood gates

Oh my God! these children's parents were not killed in a war, they are still alive, so, dont treat them as if they were dead. If you have suffered pains from your fathers death, please, dont wish another same. The postor that suggested that the Irish father is unemployed and that could be the reason for refusal should know that we are not here to make assumptions or to point false accusing fingers on another, so, please stop making assumptions. How sure are you that these third world countries are free from human right problems, this makes me believe that you are totally ignorant of what is going on in these countries. With due respect, may i ask, what is your nationality?.

[walrusgumble]

Getting a work force is not the problem. There are over 200,000 looking for work as it is. Many/most are trained to 3rd Level. Its attracting business' or stimulating the current crop in setting up their own business.

I do accept your point though that Ireland does need to be careful on how it treats its immigrants as what comes around goes around and it would not bode well for its so called island of a thousand welcomes. But, frankly, its not places like Africa or Eastern Europe that the Irish will likely turn to away (though, who knows, and it is not the point)

Ireland would be nothing without EU, maybe, but the exact same would be said about most other countries in the Union. The Union signed up by Ireland was based on Economic co-operation, EEC. Its safe to say that the Union of today is greatly different to that pre 1992. Its not what most countries signed up for. If it rejects a treaty, it gets bullied, yet if France/Germany or even Poland speak up every one shuts up. Europe was suppose to be about a unit of countries who enjoy EQUAL Rights and say. Some how, I don't think most EU countries signed up to the opinions of unelected and unaccountable judge makers. (Though in fairness, Directive 2004/38 EC is based on such caselaw)

I do appreciate your somehow sincere contributions in this forum, however, I am suprise sometime with your reasoning. I have a question for you. Is it a sin or illegal for someone to fall in love?, do you have emotions? If you were those children born of non eu mother with eu father, and you were forcefully seperated from your father, how would you feel? Does illegal immigration status on a mother make her or her eu children less human or animals? every law on earth was ment to the benefit of human beigns and not to their detriment. would the same law ment to help the society be used to deprive them of ther basic human rigths as in the case of the eu cildren of non eu mother?. It is hight time we start reasoning properly, we are all humans not animals. what is immigration status to basic human rights of a child. Is Ireland really a democratic society? if yes, then, why would Ireland not have regard to Irish citizen( a child) basic human right and that of his or her father ( Irish citizen). My last comment in this case would be, whomever that is commenting on this issue, please know that a child is involved in this case, as well, a genuine marriage.Thanks.

Of course it is not a sin. But it should not be an absolute expectation that they will be allowed in. They did not have legal status, therefore why should they use the santity of marriage to side step the laws. Not everyone is that honest. Why should a government run their policies by emotion? If a country did, it would be screwed royally. Guidelines and rules are they for a reason. By the way, what I said was not my opinion, but the clear and obvious attitude of the department of justice. I made it clear that it would be quite natural that a person, after so many years who fall into a sitation where they fall in love etc. But, I also made it clear that the department must do more in order to avoid such suitations ever occurring.

Speaking as someone who has been separated from their father for most of my life (father killed whilst on peacekeeping service for UN) you get to a point where it does not effect you. To be honest, with the legal status in the way, i find it entirely irresponsible that they even conceived a child. THey should have known the risks. They should have known full well the risks when getting married. Falling in love is not voluntary but the latter two are. Why rush into it?

One poster suggested that that case was refused on the possible basis that the Irish spouse could not look after her due to money etc. Well then, why should the state do it? If he was european, he would be expected to be working (to do otherwise would be reverse discrimination, one which you lot would jump on, and probably successfully )

As for the child's basic human rights. If the child was expected to live in a country where their human rights would actually be at risk and they could not succeed in seeking help, then yes, ok you are right. But these children are also citizens of those other countries, and have more connection with them than Ireland. Just because you were born in a stable it does not make you a horse. Nigeria is a safe place!!!!!! THeir is no human rights violations. Even the ECHR finds that this is not against the charter. What is the point taking them in when the country is not capable of providing them a job, home and a decent standard of living? The country has its priorities to the Irish themselves, residing EU and current Non EU's to deal with.

The Irish Courts have been clear and consistent on this issue for over one decade.

If the Irish parent was that concerned, he/she would make sure that the child was kept in this state.

We do not live in utopia. So drop the "we are all humans not animals" lark. No one is treating them like animals. She took the risk of coming to Ireland on the basis of claiming asylum. She would have known that the authorities in Europe do not except that Nigeria is a dangerous country with human rights problems. She took that risk, being advised of the risk, and known full well that if she failed she would be returned home. If she wanted to do it properly she should have entered the country legally or at least returned with the point of view of making a visa application. The country should not be held up to emotional ransom. There are no human rights being abused. He could if he really wanted too, go and live in Nigeria. He wants his bread buttered both ways

I will end it on one note, and that is, in this very case, with the facts being exceptional, the minister should not have refused this case and no one would know - thus rid any fear of flood gates

Oh my God! these children's parents were not killed in a war, they are still alive, so, dont treat them as if they were dead. If you have suffered pains from your fathers death, please, dont wish another same. The postor that suggested that the Irish father is unemployed and that could be the reason for refusal should know that we are not here to make assumptions or to point false accusing fingers on another, so, please stop making assumptions. How sure are you that these third world countries are free from human right problems, this makes me believe that you are totally ignorant of what is going on in these countries. With due respect, may i ask, what is your nationality?.

Who is treating them as if they are dead? No one is saying that they are dead or will die, hence why its perfectly safe to repatriate them home. You and others refer to how one will suffer in slums of Brazil or how the child won't get a better quality of life etc. (something not covered by asylum btw)

I am not wishing "pains" of father's death. I was asked what if it was me. I answered on a point of knowing what you are talking about. I am saying, speaking as someone who has experienced it, this case is completely different. No one is going to die, and they have a choice of staying together if sacrafices are made.


As for the assumption on unemployed, I agree with you. But, its quite possibly the case, as I would imagine/expect that the department would have to treat the "obstacles" rule (a rule esposed from ECtHR cases)differently in this case as oppose to where both parents are non eu/non Irish. I am not the one making assumptions, but its a nice turn around to the assumptions or demands made by you about this country.

If we in the so called western world went to a proud Nigerian and said your country is x,y and z, said they were ALL corrupt, completely incapable of running government, completely savage, then that nigerian would rightly accuse those in the western world as being lovey,ignorant, bias and dearly beloved. Facts are this, for all its problems, and lets remember its sad history as far as 1999, Nigeria is improving. Why would the UN lie? (I can see why for the US and UK COI groups) You not think its embarrasing for Nigerian Nationals who live in England and Ireland legally and originally on non asylum basis , to hear some people tell lies about their country? Any embarrased about Pamela?

For your information, the geneva convention on refugee status makes it explicit what constitutes for refugee status. No applicant can be refused to make an application, fair enough. THe EU have made it clear what is required for subsidiary protection. THe UN guidelines on refugee status make it explicit that economic migration is not a ground for refugee ( i am sure that you are not disputing this)

Now regardless of their motives for claiming asylum, as they are entitled to do so, they are here to seek asylum and for no other reason. That was made clear by former Justice Minister McDowell in the Dail Debates regarding this stance on the COnstitutional change on citizenship. Note the drop in asylum claims, see figures on inis.gov.ie and the refugee appeals tribunal site

Lets make it clear, as an exceptional case, I don't agree with the Minister on this one, particularily as I personally know worse cases that got in.


Third world problems?, get a cup of tea and a few days off and go and read the countless UN reports and other sources from www.ecoi.net. But FAR MORE TO THE POINT, find out why they were refused asylum in the first place, creditibility being one main reason. Then find out what the word "persecution" for reasons of and or "religion, polticial, membership of social group, nationality" and "in ability to seek state protection" means and more importantly the consequences of failing to seek protection first if the persecutors are not state. The problem is, if possible they are first expected to try and relocate to another part of the country. Its clear that unless there is war or they are Christian and north Nigeria is the only safe option (which, in fairness may not be) there is plenty of land to secure a safe life. money and hardship is not seen as good enough reasons. see the handbook.


But I want one unescapable fact to be noted and discussed. If places like Nigeria were so unsafe, then why have Nigerians who have got status in ireland via IBC managed to be able to go over and back with regularly, money permitted. I can point you out one case from 2007-2009 where a Nigerian was quite busy and manged to get their status revoked. The former mayor of a certain Midlands town came here on basis of seeking asylum due to religious problems, claimed IBC . Yet shortly after becoming mayor (well done btw) he brought RTE cameras to his home land and he got a hero's welcome. So spare me the bleeding heart please.

The reality is this, whilst COI recognises on going human rights problems even in places like Nigeria, it also cites genuine efforts by the respective governments to stamp out the problems, particularily by legislation (yes, that can often be lip service) But far more importantly, there are NGO's there to assist . This is something the European courts take note of. To batter them with a stick, considering the Western World are no angels in human rights themselves, would be quite unjustified and dearly beloved.


If you want, pick out the COI supporting these problems in Nigeria or Ivory Coast (one of the most progressive areas in Africa). We can discuss that. Up to date COI, then we will see who is talking what. Point out specific human rights problems facing such people. If you said places like Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and eastern part of DRC (as oppose to the rest) now that is a competely different kettle of fish.

Go to google and type in UN Handbook on Procedure & Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

As for my nationality, its well known but its totally irrelevant. On a point of principle I am not disclosing it. For the simple reason, when people have criticised this country spouting "reverse discrimination" and commiting on how non eu people are treated and how their own nationals are treated, on countless occassions, I am asked for their nationalities and I have asked what is the position of their countries to this. Guess what? No response. I wonder why? So when you answer those questions then we can discuss your enquiry better. That is a fair deal

[daddy]

I do appreciate your somehow sincere contributions in this forum, however, I am suprise sometime with your reasoning. I have a question for you. Is it a sin or illegal for someone to fall in love?, do you have emotions? If you were those children born of non eu mother with eu father, and you were forcefully seperated from your father, how would you feel? Does illegal immigration status on a mother make her or her eu children less human or animals? every law on earth was ment to the benefit of human beigns and not to their detriment. would the same law ment to help the society be used to deprive them of ther basic human rigths as in the case of the eu cildren of non eu mother?. It is hight time we start reasoning properly, we are all humans not animals. what is immigration status to basic human rights of a child. Is Ireland really a democratic society? if yes, then, why would Ireland not have regard to Irish citizen( a child) basic human right and that of his or her father ( Irish citizen). My last comment in this case would be, whomever that is commenting on this issue, please know that a child is involved in this case, as well, a genuine marriage.Thanks.

Of course it is not a sin. But it should not be an absolute expectation that they will be allowed in. They did not have legal status, therefore why should they use the santity of marriage to side step the laws. Not everyone is that honest. Why should a government run their policies by emotion? If a country did, it would be screwed royally. Guidelines and rules are they for a reason. By the way, what I said was not my opinion, but the clear and obvious attitude of the department of justice. I made it clear that it would be quite natural that a person, after so many years who fall into a sitation where they fall in love etc. But, I also made it clear that the department must do more in order to avoid such suitations ever occurring.

Speaking as someone who has been separated from their father for most of my life (father killed whilst on peacekeeping service for UN) you get to a point where it does not effect you. To be honest, with the legal status in the way, i find it entirely irresponsible that they even conceived a child. THey should have known the risks. They should have known full well the risks when getting married. Falling in love is not voluntary but the latter two are. Why rush into it?

One poster suggested that that case was refused on the possible basis that the Irish spouse could not look after her due to money etc. Well then, why should the state do it? If he was european, he would be expected to be working (to do otherwise would be reverse discrimination, one which you lot would jump on, and probably successfully )

As for the child's basic human rights. If the child was expected to live in a country where their human rights would actually be at risk and they could not succeed in seeking help, then yes, ok you are right. But these children are also citizens of those other countries, and have more connection with them than Ireland. Just because you were born in a stable it does not make you a horse. Nigeria is a safe place!!!!!! THeir is no human rights violations. Even the ECHR finds that this is not against the charter. What is the point taking them in when the country is not capable of providing them a job, home and a decent standard of living? The country has its priorities to the Irish themselves, residing EU and current Non EU's to deal with.

The Irish Courts have been clear and consistent on this issue for over one decade.

If the Irish parent was that concerned, he/she would make sure that the child was kept in this state.

We do not live in utopia. So drop the "we are all humans not animals" lark. No one is treating them like animals. She took the risk of coming to Ireland on the basis of claiming asylum. She would have known that the authorities in Europe do not except that Nigeria is a dangerous country with human rights problems. She took that risk, being advised of the risk, and known full well that if she failed she would be returned home. If she wanted to do it properly she should have entered the country legally or at least returned with the point of view of making a visa application. The country should not be held up to emotional ransom. There are no human rights being abused. He could if he really wanted too, go and live in Nigeria. He wants his bread buttered both ways

I will end it on one note, and that is, in this very case, with the facts being exceptional, the minister should not have refused this case and no one would know - thus rid any fear of flood gates

Oh my God! these children's parents were not killed in a war, they are still alive, so, dont treat them as if they were dead. If you have suffered pains from your fathers death, please, dont wish another same. The postor that suggested that the Irish father is unemployed and that could be the reason for refusal should know that we are not here to make assumptions or to point false accusing fingers on another, so, please stop making assumptions. How sure are you that these third world countries are free from human right problems, this makes me believe that you are totally ignorant of what is going on in these countries. With due respect, may i ask, what is your nationality?.

Who is treating them as if they are dead? No one is saying that they are dead or will die, hence why its perfectly safe to repatriate them home. You and others refer to how one will suffer in slums of Brazil or how the child won't get a better quality of life etc. (something not covered by asylum btw)

I am not wishing "pains" of father's death. I was asked what if it was me. I answered on a point of knowing what you are talking about. I am saying, speaking as someone who has experienced it, this case is completely different. No one is going to die, and they have a choice of staying together if sacrafices are made.


As for the assumption on unemployed, I agree with you. But, its quite possibly the case, as I would imagine/expect that the department would have to treat the "obstacles" rule (a rule esposed from ECtHR cases)differently in this case as oppose to where both parents are non eu/non Irish. I am not the one making assumptions, but its a nice turn around to the assumptions or demands made by you about this country.

If we in the so called western world went to a proud Nigerian and said your country is x,y and z, said they were ALL corrupt, completely incapable of running government, completely savage, then that nigerian would rightly accuse those in the western world as being lovey,ignorant, bias and dearly beloved. Facts are this, for all its problems, and lets remember its sad history as far as 1999, Nigeria is improving. Why would the UN lie? (I can see why for the US and UK COI groups) You not think its embarrasing for Nigerian Nationals who live in England and Ireland legally and originally on non asylum basis , to hear some people tell lies about their country? Any embarrased about Pamela?

For your information, the geneva convention on refugee status makes it explicit what constitutes for refugee status. No applicant can be refused to make an application, fair enough. THe EU have made it clear what is required for subsidiary protection. THe UN guidelines on refugee status make it explicit that economic migration is not a ground for refugee ( i am sure that you are not disputing this)

Now regardless of their motives for claiming asylum, as they are entitled to do so, they are here to seek asylum and for no other reason. That was made clear by former Justice Minister McDowell in the Dail Debates regarding this stance on the COnstitutional change on citizenship. Note the drop in asylum claims, see figures on inis.gov.ie and the refugee appeals tribunal site

Lets make it clear, as an exceptional case, I don't agree with the Minister on this one, particularily as I personally know worse cases that got in.


Third world problems?, get a cup of tea and a few days off and go and read the countless UN reports and other sources from www.ecoi.net. But FAR MORE TO THE POINT, find out why they were refused asylum in the first place, creditibility being one main reason. Then find out what the word "persecution" for reasons of and or "religion, polticial, membership of social group, nationality" and "in ability to seek state protection" means and more importantly the consequences of failing to seek protection first if the persecutors are not state. The problem is, if possible they are first expected to try and relocate to another part of the country. Its clear that unless there is war or they are Christian and north Nigeria is the only safe option (which, in fairness may not be) there is plenty of land to secure a safe life. money and hardship is not seen as good enough reasons. see the handbook.


But I want one unescapable fact to be noted and discussed. If places like Nigeria were so unsafe, then why have Nigerians who have got status in ireland via IBC managed to be able to go over and back with regularly, money permitted. I can point you out one case from 2007-2009 where a Nigerian was quite busy and manged to get their status revoked. The former mayor of a certain Midlands town came here on basis of seeking asylum due to religious problems, claimed IBC . Yet shortly after becoming mayor (well done btw) he brought RTE cameras to his home land and he got a hero's welcome. So spare me the bleeding heart please.

The reality is this, whilst COI recognises on going human rights problems even in places like Nigeria, it also cites genuine efforts by the respective governments to stamp out the problems, particularily by legislation (yes, that can often be lip service) But far more importantly, there are NGO's there to assist . This is something the European courts take note of. To batter them with a stick, considering the Western World are no angels in human rights themselves, would be quite unjustified and dearly beloved.


If you want, pick out the COI supporting these problems in Nigeria or Ivory Coast (one of the most progressive areas in Africa). We can discuss that. Up to date COI, then we will see who is talking what. Point out specific human rights problems facing such people. If you said places like Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and eastern part of DRC (as oppose to the rest) now that is a competely different kettle of fish.

Go to google and type in UN Handbook on Procedure & Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

As for my nationality, its well known but its totally irrelevant. On a point of principle I am not disclosing it. For the simple reason, when people have criticised this country spouting "reverse discrimination" and commiting on how non eu people are treated and how their own nationals are treated, on countless occassions, I am asked for their nationalities and I have asked what is the position of their countries to this. Guess what? No response. I wonder why? So when you answer those questions then we can discuss your enquiry better. That is a fair deal

It seems that you failed to get my concern and that of many people on this forum, which is the interest of children involved. I have no time for other unnecessary politics regarding asylum. I repeat, the interest and future of children should come first, and every eu member state has signed to respect it in practice not by lip service, hope you would agree with that.

[Obie]

Like i said before walrusgumble, the longer we stay on this forum, the better we get to know people. There is only so long, that one can conceal their true views on immigration and immigrant . You cannot continue to say it is the DOJ's view.

I sympathise with you, that you lost your father at an early age. I too lost mine in war at a very young age. Thanks to an older sibling, without whose help and assistance, i don't know where i will be today. I am in my early 20s and the pain is indeed raw, i will not wish it on my worst enemy. Except obviously in my circumstance like yours, there is nothing we can do to change my it. Our situation cannot be assimilated with that of someone whose parents are alive, but has been forcibly denied the right to family life by national authority.

There is a case called Hanna Yousef Abdulla at the ECHR, which states that it is a breach of Article 13 ECHR charter to separate children from their parents. I am sure the Irish courts are aware of this ruling. It involved the right of the divorced father to see his child in the country he lives, but this could be assimilated to the case of a family facing separation.


How could a country , which claims to pride itself on respect for the family and it values, seeks to separate a family or make them choose between living in the state of the child's nationality or a third country, where she will not be able to benefit from the right as a citizen .

[walrusgumble]

...Bottom line, they are the issues of concern, not a small number of couples which this matter effects. Be honest, these sad and in some cases drastic judgements will have little effect on the population as a whole. They were just as common in the UK, but that did not bring society down.

Hi walrusgumble,

as you say, the small numbers of immigrants where such drastic measures are taken won´t bring society down, whatever way their specific cases are decided (allowed to stay / NOT allowed to stay). The 100 odd cases where Irish children (no idea how many such cases there are?) will be deported won´t change anything in the big picture.

Indirectly, however, the big picture is influenced, and that´s the reputation of the state.

If one of my countries (I´m both German and Belgian) would deport German respectively Belgian children, i.e. my own compatriots, to Nigeria or Brazil against their parents wishes, my belief in the state would be more shattered than it already is.

I can´t understand how Irish people can accept that Irish children are deported in that manner. In this specific case the child concerned is not "just" paper-Irish (as if that wasn´t bad enough), this child is truly 50% real Irish. 100% Irish according to the passport. And deported to Nigeria.

So the belief into the stability of the state / the reasoning of the government could well suffer from such indescribable occurrences.

Hi ca funke

THe children themselves won't be deported. Many cases in teh High Court now, if I am correct, involve mostly fathers who came to Ireland 4-5 years AFTER the child was born and when the NON Irish mother got status. The IBC application forms made it clear, crystal clear that there would be no expectation of family reunification. The Minister at the time saw this coming a mile off. THe parent was not too concerned then, why now should he be reward with a new found interest in his family? It probably goes inconsistent with what was said in the asylum case. Really, how many mothers leave with the deported father. I wager very very few.

Reputation of the State won't be effected by this.

To be very blunt, many people, with the exception of the political opportuntiy grabbers, don't actually see these children as Irish, in the first place. As for the reported case, fair enough, there is a genuine case.

You shouldn't probably look at the ECtHR cases involving Belgium then. Other issue is, like Ireland, Belgium was one of the last to change the automatic citizenship, so these issues won't crop up much. Its a different story if these people came from seriously dangerous countries. But look at the facts, where do a majority of Nigerian asylum seekers go to? UK & Ireland.

"If one of my countries (I´m both German and Belgian) would deport German respectively Belgian children, i.e. my own compatriots, to Nigeria or Brazil against their parents wishes, my belief in the state would be more shattered than it already is."

Seriously, again, the children are not being deported themselves, and seriously read the ECHR cases. Its clear a state does not have to respect the families choice of residence.

[walrusgumble]

Like i said before walrusgumble, the longer we stay on this forum, the better we get to know people. There is only so long, that one can conceal their true views on immigration and immigrant . You cannot continue to say it is the DOJ's view.

I sympathise with you, that you lost your father at an early age. I too lost mine in war at a very young age. Thanks to an older sibling, without whose help and assistance, i don't know where i will be today. I am in my early 20s and the pain is indeed raw, i will not wish it on my worst enemy. Except obviously in my circumstance like yours, there is nothing we can do to change my it. Our situation cannot be assimilated with that of someone whose parents are alive, but has been forcibly denied the right to family life by national authority.

There is a case called Hanna Yousef Abdulla at the ECHR, which states that it is a breach of Article 13 ECHR charter to separate children from their parents. I am sure the Irish courts are aware of this ruling. It involved the right of the divorced father to see his child in the country he lives, but this could be assimilated to the case of a family facing separation.


How could a country , which claims to pride itself on respect for the family and it values, seeks to separate a family or make them choose between living in the state of the child's nationality or a third country, where she will not be able to benefit from the right as a citizen .

So you are saying that what I have said is inconsistent with what the Department of Justice ACTUALLY DOES or TRIES? Jesus, I never thought departments could read people's minds

But I will point out, in my personal view, I have no time what so ever for people who came here on false basis eg economic migrants unneccessarily claiming asylum, nor language course students who booked into "private" places claiming to be still learning english or it after 5 or so years (here is a hint, knock the working 30+hours on the head) - apply for visas like everyone else.

Stick to the facts Obie and what the law says. There is a correct and wrong way to enter the country. Pretending to be in danger from their country is not one of them. Neither is coming in heavily pregnant and all of a sudden dropping the asylum claim, taking advantage of previous laws. The whole of the European Union have spotted this, so its not jsut Ireland. It is also sickening that for one who once claimed fear of their country then can head off home on short vacation. Makes a mockery of the system. What were the early claims again? vodoo magic, ju ju, shrines and cults. Then all of a sudden people got more creative

Now, if it was a case where a country opened up schemes to bring these people in, then fine, as long as it is legal, and the state has full control.

Its a completely different story when they come from genuine asylum countries. Its all right for you it is the legal residence and citizens of this country ie tax payers (so not just Irish) that pay for the accommodation centres etc.

So get out of the garden double quick time Obie, you could not be more wrong about what you are truely suggesting. Don't think for one moment everyone is not going to back off why you bark out the R word. I have absolutely no doubt what so ever, that your country of origin is not a tolerant country, so look at your self in the mirror

Hanna Yousef Abdulla at the ECHR, which states that it is a breach of Article 13 ECHR charter to separate children from their parents - hang on, that case is not similar to the reported one above. The parents are not legally separated or divorced and the father had guardian / access rights anyway. the end of the family unit was voluntary with no state involvement. the father already had legal status. in this case reported case, the parent had been deemed illegaly for a substantial period prior to the establishment of a family unit. so no, it could not be assimilated to the case of a family facing separation

Your last comment, I can't honestly answer that, because, as I say, I do disagree with the decision, as their is an Irish Citizen invloved. I would have problems with the notion of the Minister applying the same rules on an Irish born parent and non irish/non eu parents.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean

[fatty patty]

I think this dicussion is going south from north. I am just gonna keep it simple and few points...

1. Mum of an Irish born child is gonna be deported...not just Irish born child but a spouse of Irish who is not just Irish by passport but Irish by heritage as some people might question just passport holder's Irishness that they are not "really" Irish. Also the baby is also Irish by heritage even if half caste and not to be compared to just IBC.

2. Mum has a problmatic immigration history being failed asylum seeker etc no doubt but that does not superceed the fact that she gone in to a healthy relationship with an Irishman a year ago and married and have a child (stars in the sky knows whatever her intention was or were when she did but we are not here to judge that, no sir). This puts her in a strong position (morally) if not by virtue of current immigration laws (which i ask are they any as everything is under discretions).

3. Similar cases comes before UKBA and ze Germans they pretty much follow the same lines as Irish but once challenged in the courts they gets approved...(examples are of Indian, Pakistani, Bengali, Sri Lankan, Mauritian heritage Brits and Turk, Bosnian, Kosovan heritage Germans who marry in their home country and bring spouse home...most marriages are arranged meaning their is no long dating/night clubbing together going on but as its very common UKBA/ze Germans bites the bullet in alot of cases)

4. Agree on Walrus point regarding if the above Irish citizen would have been an EU citizen in his current situation (meaning claiming SW, which we are assuming he is or is he?) he would be refused for e.g. if he would have been a Polish national he has to be working/exercising his treaty rights to be able to be approved. So if Irish authorities following a treaty exercise sort of rule on their own citizen i dont think its against the law...i would question its merit morally but i am tight lipped on legal side. (not that i am a legal expert but every one likes to think they're ). Now if he is not claiming SW and working even 30 hrs week on minimum wage and barely able to pay maintenance to 10 kids, 10 ex-wives it doesn't matter...he is working and meeting the conditions of "treaty" law but treaty law is not in question here...this is why this is reverse discrimination.

BTW a country doesn't have to be a war torn region for someone to claim asylum...example is below...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25538426/ns ... /n_africa/

http://www.connection-ev.de/z.php?ID=369

What i mean is it can be anyone/any nationality seeking political asylum or fleeing intimidation or think life in danger from where they're fleeing from. (Could be Lenihan/Cowen seeking asylum in Brussels after SF moved into the government buildings next year )

[Obie]

walrusgumble i beg to differ with you that my nation is intolerant. In fact i have never hard western people complain their were abducted or treated badly when they went there. In fact we have a problem there, locals complain sometimes that foreign national get treated better that nationals in all sphere of our society, which is something our government is seeking to address. We don't want them to be treated worst , but at least equal treatment will do for us. In fact the number of western people or so called expatriate that lives there, in proportion to our population size, is far greater than the number of my compatriot who live in these western state. I will try not to engage you, by going into too much detail of my country of origin, and go of topic.

You seem to be more concerned about this woman's status rather than the welfare of one of your compatriot. No one is suggesting that her undocumented status in Ireland should be condoled. All people are saying is that on a balance, removal is not proportionate. Especially being that she is the primary carer of this Irish Citizen. Perhaps there would have been a little bit more sympathy with the state if it was the father of this child that was in such predicament.

If Article 13 of ECHR is breached when a child is not allowed to stay in the same country as a divorced parent, then would it not be breached for a married couple, when the outcome will be the same. Is it right to suggest that an Irish child would be in a better position if her parents were divorced than if they are together. Is it right to say, that if this woman was to seek divorce from this Irish national, and then this National seek a contact order from the court, then the child would have to stay in Ireland and the mother will be allowed to stay too. Come on now, doesn't this show a lot more holes in the Ministers decision. Come on this is not rocket science. I am sure any court given the opportunity to examine the merit of this case or assimilate it with the case i citated will see they are linked. At the end of the day, they lead to the same outcome. This Irish national cannot relocate to Nigeria, this child will miss the opportunity of having the contribution of both parents in his/her life. Whether the couple are together or divorced, the effect will be exactly the same. It was the effect that the court was more concerned about, in my opinion.

I was going to touch on the comment of asylum seekers from Nigeria, but as fatty has already dealt with it, i don't think i can add more that what he has already stated. Most political asylum cases , don't involve war or persecution on a national scale. People claim asylum from America, UK, for a variety of reason. This is why asylum claims cannot be generalized. It has to be examined on an individual basis. Any attempt to generalize is doomed.

Just to add one thing, if this man had in the past worked in another member state, even though he is in Ireland now claiming benefits, he would have qualified for family reunification under community law. I am sure he must have worked at some point in time during his adult life in Ireland, so i will say there is some aspect of reverse discrimination.
It is arguable that his case could be assimilated to an Irish national who was previously working in another memberstate, who is in Ireland now, benefiting from family reunification, who is at present on social welfare.

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble i beg to differ with you that my nation is intolerant. In fact i have never hard western people complain their were abducted or treated badly when they went there. In fact we have a problem there, locals complain sometimes that foreign national get treated better that nationals in all sphere of our society, which is something our government is seeking to address. We don't want them to be treated worst , but at least equal treatment will do for us. In fact the number of western people or so called expatriate that lives there, in proportion to our population size, is far greater than the number of my compatriot who live in these western state. I will try not to engage you, by going into too much detail of my country of origin, and go of topic.

You seem to be more concerned about this woman's status rather than the welfare of one of your compatriot. No one is suggesting that her undocumented status in Ireland should be condoled. All people are saying is that on a balance, removal is not proportionate. Especially being that she is the primary carer of this Irish Citizen. Perhaps there would have been a little bit more sympathy with the state if it was the father of this child that was in such predicament.

If Article 13 of ECHR is breached when a child is not allowed to stay in the same country as a divorced parent, then would it not be breached for a married couple, when the outcome will be the same. Is it right to suggest that an Irish child would be in a better position if her parents were divorced than if they are together. Is it right to say, that if this woman was to seek divorce from this Irish national, and then this National seek a contact order from the court, then the child would have to stay in Ireland and the mother will be allowed to stay too. Come on now, doesn't this show a lot more holes in the Ministers decision. Come on this is not rocket science. I am sure any court given the opportunity to examine the merit of this case or assimilate it with the case i citated will see they are linked. At the end of the day, they lead to the same outcome. This Irish national cannot relocate to Nigeria, this child will miss the opportunity of having the contribution of both parents in his/her life. Whether the couple are together or divorced, the effect will be exactly the same. It was the effect that the court was more concerned about, in my opinion.

I was going to touch on the comment of asylum seekers from Nigeria, but as fatty has already dealt with it, i don't think i can add more that what he has already stated. Most political asylum cases , don't involve war or persecution on a national scale. People claim asylum from America, UK, for a variety of reason. This is why asylum claims cannot be generalized. It has to be examined on an individual basis. Any attempt to generalize is doomed.

Just to add one thing, if this man had in the past worked in another member state, even though he is in Ireland now claiming benefits, he would have qualified for family reunification under community law. I am sure he must have worked at some point in time during his adult life in Ireland, so i will say there is some aspect of reverse discrimination.
It is arguable that his case could be assimilated to an Irish national who was previously working in another memberstate, who is in Ireland now, benefiting from family reunification, who is at present on social welfare.

This nation is not intolerant to different nationalities, religions etc coming to Ireland. The nation does not care who you are or your background, if you are legal and will contribute you are welcome, regardless of how bad the country is now. The country does not begrude helping out those who came previously now seeking the dole etc. Its their right. It is intolerant with abuse to systems. (well it has accepted it, but is not happy with it) I as a member of that nation are no different.

As for your nation, I am referring to how it treats their own people, not foreigners. Where are you from anyway? South Africa by any chance? (guessing) You don't need to be abducted to say somewhere is intolerant. Whats views on women, gays, freedom of speech, minorities? (yes you will have a field day pointing out our faults) Its funny though, in a completely different context, locals say the same about foreiginers here such as asylum seekers (which, we can all agree is absolutely bol**x) I am aware from pals in China getting better pay simply because they are from Europe.


As for welfare of woman's status and welfare of one of my comparoits. It is the mother who is at risk not the father or child (directly) it is her history that is at scrutiny

Eh, I have said already, if he is take concerned about his child he will make sure he/she stays here. He clearly did not meet the insourmountable obstacles clause established by ECtHR and he knew of her status at time, he knew the risks, he should have known better - clearly what the courts are impling. BUT, there is no point talking about this particular case, becasue I agree with you that this case, it is disporportionate to remove her. Provided he can provide for her, fine, let her stay. I have little or no qualms with it, it involves an Irish Parent who could get round the rules via Europe. But it should not be an avenue for other cases. That is the crucial discussion point as far as I am concerned. If you say you don't condone the actions of people like her, but support decisions like that, then you are indirectly condoning it by encouraging them to get pregnant (which seems easy) and get an Irish person (sounds a tad over dramatic i admit)

Primary Carer of the Citizen. This is typical sexist nonsense. I am sure the father is well capable of doing the job. If the mother was the Irish Citizen there would not be much sympathy (not ye in fairness) But then i re read that bit, and I find it extremely hypocritical as well. You say ok state is the non eu/irish is the father but no no no is its the mother. Sounds like discrimination on sex grounds to me

As for Article 13, that article is rarely used on its own, often with artilces like artilce 8. If that is your view, then it completely contradicts other ECtHR cases. What about non married couples then. Would child be in better position if parents were divorced? The way the legislation and policy goes, even in some scenerios involving Directive 2004/38 EC, then the answer, oddly, is yes. But the mother would probably have needed legal status here at some point. If she had, she might very well get to stay as he would, as part of divorce have guardianship rights etc, and claim Brussells Regulations etc. Oddly, if married, they are screwed.

But as like your unwillingness to explain about your country, we are wasting our time talking about the reported case, I agree with you. I made it clear earlier too. (but this case only)


"Most political asylum cases , don't involve war or persecution on a national scale. People claim asylum from America, UK, for a variety of reason. This is why asylum claims cannot be generalized. It has to be examined on an individual basis. Any attempt to generalize is doomed. "

political asylum involves a complete clamp down of political,civil and social liberties and there must be persecution. anything less does not fall within refugee status end of. How many people from America and UK actually succeed in asylum claims???????????????? Very Very Very few, but yes, I agree , I am aware it happens. My comments are soley based on what happens in this country. Check the stats and facts from the rac and rat sites. There are not much difference with the UK, they have an excellent site

[walrusgumble]

I think this dicussion is going south from north. I am just gonna keep it simple and few points...

1. Mum of an Irish born child is gonna be deported...not just Irish born child but a spouse of Irish who is not just Irish by passport but Irish by heritage as some people might question just passport holder's Irishness that they are not "really" Irish. Also the baby is also Irish by heritage even if half caste and not to be compared to just IBC.

2. Mum has a problmatic immigration history being failed asylum seeker etc no doubt but that does not superceed the fact that she gone in to a healthy relationship with an Irishman a year ago and married and have a child (stars in the sky knows whatever her intention was or were when she did but we are not here to judge that, no sir). This puts her in a strong position (morally) if not by virtue of current immigration laws (which i ask are they any as everything is under discretions).

3. Similar cases comes before UKBA and ze Germans they pretty much follow the same lines as Irish but once challenged in the courts they gets approved...(examples are of Indian, Pakistani, Bengali, Sri Lankan, Mauritian heritage Brits and Turk, Bosnian, Kosovan heritage Germans who marry in their home country and bring spouse home...most marriages are arranged meaning their is no long dating/night clubbing together going on but as its very common UKBA/ze Germans bites the bullet in alot of cases)

4. Agree on Walrus point regarding if the above Irish citizen would have been an EU citizen in his current situation (meaning claiming SW, which we are assuming he is or is he?) he would be refused for e.g. if he would have been a Polish national he has to be working/exercising his treaty rights to be able to be approved. So if Irish authorities following a treaty exercise sort of rule on their own citizen i dont think its against the law...i would question its merit morally but i am tight lipped on legal side. (not that i am a legal expert but every one likes to think they're ). Now if he is not claiming SW and working even 30 hrs week on minimum wage and barely able to pay maintenance to 10 kids, 10 ex-wives it doesn't matter...he is working and meeting the conditions of "treaty" law but treaty law is not in question here...this is why this is reverse discrimination.

BTW a country doesn't have to be a war torn region for someone to claim asylum...example is below...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25538426/ns ... /n_africa/

http://www.connection-ev.de/z.php?ID=369

What i mean is it can be anyone/any nationality seeking political asylum or fleeing intimidation or think life in danger from where they're fleeing from. (Could be Lenihan/Cowen seeking asylum in Brussels after SF moved into the government buildings next year )

Does not mean they will be granted refugee status? No. there is a provision on the UN handbook on procedures..... in relation to deserters/people who object to being drafted. but you are absolutely right, anyone can apply, no one doubts that. At least those soliders have something genuine to fear ie definite loss of liberty if returned to their countries and being jailed to going awol. Examples i give, its simply better lifestyle and chance of making money. When they are refused they are expected to leave.

Somehow, I think Lenihan, will return to the Dail. If not, he will lovingly be welcomed back to the Law Library or Cambridge Uni. biffo, ha, let he gorge himself like a pig on booze and fags during x mas and have a heart attack

the fear of sf going into power would have fg and ff combine forces . even labour, being populist and all would join forces against them

i heard the british are very lenient in allowing people in, but once you mess up, you are out of there as quick as you say deportation. cameroon change things? i must say its an interesting approach, wonder what they would do with African countries? would you mind throwing out a few links please, are these judicial reviews or actual appeal hearings? Maurtian? they would have NO chance being allowed to stay on asylum basis. pakistan .... maybe, know nothing about shr lanka

[rlow68]

walrusgumble i beg to differ with you that my nation is intolerant. In fact i have never hard western people complain their were abducted or treated badly when they went there. In fact we have a problem there, locals complain sometimes that foreign national get treated better that nationals in all sphere of our society, which is something our government is seeking to address. We don't want them to be treated worst , but at least equal treatment will do for us. In fact the number of western people or so called expatriate that lives there, in proportion to our population size, is far greater than the number of my compatriot who live in these western state. I will try not to engage you, by going into too much detail of my country of origin, and go of topic.

You seem to be more concerned about this woman's status rather than the welfare of one of your compatriot. No one is suggesting that her undocumented status in Ireland should be condoled. All people are saying is that on a balance, removal is not proportionate. Especially being that she is the primary carer of this Irish Citizen. Perhaps there would have been a little bit more sympathy with the state if it was the father of this child that was in such predicament.

If Article 13 of ECHR is breached when a child is not allowed to stay in the same country as a divorced parent, then would it not be breached for a married couple, when the outcome will be the same. Is it right to suggest that an Irish child would be in a better position if her parents were divorced than if they are together. Is it right to say, that if this woman was to seek divorce from this Irish national, and then this National seek a contact order from the court, then the child would have to stay in Ireland and the mother will be allowed to stay too. Come on now, doesn't this show a lot more holes in the Ministers decision. Come on this is not rocket science. I am sure any court given the opportunity to examine the merit of this case or assimilate it with the case i citated will see they are linked. At the end of the day, they lead to the same outcome. This Irish national cannot relocate to Nigeria, this child will miss the opportunity of having the contribution of both parents in his/her life. Whether the couple are together or divorced, the effect will be exactly the same. It was the effect that the court was more concerned about, in my opinion.

I was going to touch on the comment of asylum seekers from Nigeria, but as fatty has already dealt with it, i don't think i can add more that what he has already stated. Most political asylum cases , don't involve war or persecution on a national scale. People claim asylum from America, UK, for a variety of reason. This is why asylum claims cannot be generalized. It has to be examined on an individual basis. Any attempt to generalize is doomed.

Just to add one thing, if this man had in the past worked in another member state, even though he is in Ireland now claiming benefits, he would have qualified for family reunification under community law. I am sure he must have worked at some point in time during his adult life in Ireland, so i will say there is some aspect of reverse discrimination.
It is arguable that his case could be assimilated to an Irish national who was previously working in another memberstate, who is in Ireland now, benefiting from family reunification, who is at present on social welfare.

If this man lost his job under 2 years ago and not able to get another one yet, we all know getting a job at this time is the most difficult experience since late 2008 does that mean his family has no rights?, is he a condemned man because he could not get a job which may not be his fault. A lot of people who are unemployed are not happy and most depressed because of the position they find themselves, yet we keep talking about them as if they are just not suppose to live among the citizens. I am not talking of people who have never being involved in any job for a long time when the economy was very bouyant and there was jobs everywhere
When the government and the people are talking about somebody who is unemployed, I do not think they are being fair to people who lost their job and trying tooth and nail to get another one but with no luck yet, because the government are not trying enough in creating jobs for those unemployed. It is a fact that there are over 250000 unemployed due to no fault of them.

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble i beg to differ with you that my nation is intolerant. In fact i have never hard western people complain their were abducted or treated badly when they went there. In fact we have a problem there, locals complain sometimes that foreign national get treated better that nationals in all sphere of our society, which is something our government is seeking to address. We don't want them to be treated worst , but at least equal treatment will do for us. In fact the number of western people or so called expatriate that lives there, in proportion to our population size, is far greater than the number of my compatriot who live in these western state. I will try not to engage you, by going into too much detail of my country of origin, and go of topic.

You seem to be more concerned about this woman's status rather than the welfare of one of your compatriot. No one is suggesting that her undocumented status in Ireland should be condoled. All people are saying is that on a balance, removal is not proportionate. Especially being that she is the primary carer of this Irish Citizen. Perhaps there would have been a little bit more sympathy with the state if it was the father of this child that was in such predicament.

If Article 13 of ECHR is breached when a child is not allowed to stay in the same country as a divorced parent, then would it not be breached for a married couple, when the outcome will be the same. Is it right to suggest that an Irish child would be in a better position if her parents were divorced than if they are together. Is it right to say, that if this woman was to seek divorce from this Irish national, and then this National seek a contact order from the court, then the child would have to stay in Ireland and the mother will be allowed to stay too. Come on now, doesn't this show a lot more holes in the Ministers decision. Come on this is not rocket science. I am sure any court given the opportunity to examine the merit of this case or assimilate it with the case i citated will see they are linked. At the end of the day, they lead to the same outcome. This Irish national cannot relocate to Nigeria, this child will miss the opportunity of having the contribution of both parents in his/her life. Whether the couple are together or divorced, the effect will be exactly the same. It was the effect that the court was more concerned about, in my opinion.

I was going to touch on the comment of asylum seekers from Nigeria, but as fatty has already dealt with it, i don't think i can add more that what he has already stated. Most political asylum cases , don't involve war or persecution on a national scale. People claim asylum from America, UK, for a variety of reason. This is why asylum claims cannot be generalized. It has to be examined on an individual basis. Any attempt to generalize is doomed.

Just to add one thing, if this man had in the past worked in another member state, even though he is in Ireland now claiming benefits, he would have qualified for family reunification under community law. I am sure he must have worked at some point in time during his adult life in Ireland, so i will say there is some aspect of reverse discrimination.
It is arguable that his case could be assimilated to an Irish national who was previously working in another memberstate, who is in Ireland now, benefiting from family reunification, who is at present on social welfare.

If this man lost his job under 2 years ago and not able to get another one yet, we all know getting a job at this time is the most difficult experience since late 2008 does that mean his family has no rights?, is he a condemned man because he could not get a job which may not be his fault. A lot of people who are unemployed are not happy and most depressed because of the position they find themselves, yet we keep talking about them as if they are just not suppose to live among the citizens. I am not talking of people who have never being involved in any job for a long time when the economy was very bouyant and there was jobs everywhere
When the government and the people are talking about somebody who is unemployed, I do not think they are being fair to people who lost their job and trying tooth and nail to get another one but with no luck yet, because the government are not trying enough in creating jobs for those unemployed. It is a fact that there are over 250000 unemployed due to no fault of them.

anyone got a link to the judgement.surely it will be on courts.ie soon

[Obie]

walrusgumble , no one is condoning anything. All we are saying is that in circumstance like this, where the marriage has been subsisting for a substantial period of time before a deportation came into force, an Irish citizen child is in the picture, and there is no intention on the non-national spouse to enter the relationship solely for immigration purpose, as is evident in this case, then a right to stay should be granted. This is consistent with basic human empathy and decency, apart from any legal obligation or anything else for that matter. I don't buy any floodgate argument. I can't envisage thousands of immigrant or Nigerian women being in the same position as this woman.
I am glad we have been successful in changing your view of the unethical practice carried out by the minister of justice and his officials in this instance. I believe with time, we will be able to assist you in seeing things from immigrants view. Then again, if you are an official at the DOJ as you claimed, you will have had the opportunity of understanding the true nature of the difficulties immigrant undergo in Ireland.

It is not an option for the child to stay in the state without his mother, when she is not deceased. This is gross cruelty. I am sure many Irish women will not find such option appealing, or given the choice, the child will choose not to have his mother in his upbringing.

My country of origin is fine, and it treats us okay, just in case there is any doubt about that in your mind. Although there is always room for improvement. No citizen can claim everything is fine with their nation.

I have said it in the past that i have no problem with Irish people, in fact i quite like them as it happen, my problems is with those civil servant at the department of Justice and those drunkard political, who don't know what they are doing. It is them that i hold in no regards. It was their incompetence that causes hardship to families. Not just the family in the case discussed on this thread, but in cases like our, where as a matter of right i was meant to stay in Ireland. I hope they all burn in hell.

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble , no one is condoning anything. All we are saying is that in circumstance like this, where the marriage has been subsisting for a substantial period of time before a deportation came into force, an Irish citizen child is in the picture, and there is no intention on the non-national spouse to enter the relationship solely for immigration purpose, as is evident in this case, then a right to stay should be granted. This is consistent with basic human empathy and decency, apart from any legal obligation or anything else for that matter. I don't buy any floodgate argument. I can't envisage thousands of immigrant or Nigerian women being in the same position as this woman.
I am glad we have been successful in changing your view of the unethical practice carried out by the minister of justice and his officials in this instance. I believe with time, we will be able to assist you in seeing things from immigrants view. Then again, if you are an official at the DOJ as you claimed, you will have had the opportunity of understanding the true nature of the difficulties immigrant undergo in Ireland.

It is not an option for the child to stay in the state without his mother, when she is not deceased. This is gross cruelty. I am sure many Irish women will not find such option appealing, or given the choice, the child will choose not to have his mother in his upbringing.

My country of origin is fine, and it treats us okay, just in case there is any doubt about that in your mind. Although there is always room for improvement. No citizen can claim everything is fine with their nation.

I have said it in the past that i have no problem with Irish people, in fact i quite like them as it happen, my problems is with those civil servant at the department of Justice and those drunkard political, who don't know what they are doing. It is them that i hold in no regards. It was their incompetence that causes hardship to families. Not just the family in the case discussed on this thread, but in cases like our, where as a matter of right i was meant to stay in Ireland. I hope they all burn in hell.

I have just read the facts of that case for the first time earlier, and would alter my attitude somewhat against the reported case.



The report actually says the deportation order was issued in 2005, long before she meet this fella. Some may argue a situation was engineered or has, in future cases, the potential of being engineered
. No then sorry, there is no disproportionality at all. She had been evading the authoritites at that point, so she should not be rewarded. As I say, there will be very little ECHR cases to support here.

Below are extracts from the case

“Any day now the Garda could arrive at my door, separate me from my family and put me on a plane to Nigeria. It is like living with a death sentence over your head,â€

[El shaddai]

[Monifé]

Again, family, if they are that bothered, can head over.

You think it is that easy? To just up and leave. There are other things to consider here. The fact the husband has kids from another relationship, probably has a mortgage too. The fact that the woman's child lives here and is used to living here, it is not fair on the child to be deported to a country where she has no prospects and wouldn't easily adapt to. There is a lot more involved, you can't just say, oh she's illegal she knows the rules, they should leave.

I am not saying it was unlawful to make the deportation order, but it was unlawful to not consider the above in revocation of a deportation order. And it was just down right inhumane.

Who gives a bloody b**locks if people are non-eu or not? Does that make them any less of a person. You go on sometimes like they are all in it for scamming and they shouldn't be trusted. They are not criminals, just because they went against immigration law does not make them criminals. All immigration law is, is a control on who can and cannot enter the country and I for one think its ridiculous how stringent the rules are and how cold the DOJ staff and MOJ are.

[walrusgumble]

Again, family, if they are that bothered, can head over.

You think it is that easy? To just up and leave. There are other things to consider here. The fact the husband has kids from another relationship, probably has a mortgage too. The fact that the woman's child lives here and is used to living here, it is not fair on the child to be deported to a country where she has no prospects and wouldn't easily adapt to. There is a lot more involved, you can't just say, oh she's illegal she knows the rules, they should leave.

I am not saying it was unlawful to make the deportation order, but it was unlawful to not consider the above in revocation of a deportation order. And it was just down right inhumane.

Who gives a bloody b**locks if people are non-eu or not? Does that make them any less of a person. You go on sometimes like they are all in it for scamming and they shouldn't be trusted. They are not criminals, just because they went against immigration law does not make them criminals. All immigration law is, is a control on who can and cannot enter the country and I for one think its ridiculous how stringent the rules are and how cold the DOJ staff and MOJ are.

There is a big difference between being boyfriend girl friend and actually then committing to marriage. This being done, knowing that there is a risk that it won't save someone. All of a sudden there is a rush to marry. If they were with each other from say 2-3 years prior, then fair enough maybe. But quite frankly its difficult to be cycnical of anything less.

There is no doubt that the important matters you raised would have been considered by the Minister because, assuming the applicants put that info before him, and the Minister failed to give a reasoned explanation, then the applicants WOULD have won in court. Thus Judicial Review. We know nothing as to why the minister, though considering his situation, still said no. So we should not jump to conclusions. Maybe there was no evidence that he is actually an active father towards the other children. Who knows? Maybe the court transcript will say something.

The child is also Nigerian remember. Claiming that there are absolutely no prospects is disengenious to the Country (yes yes yes only the rich do well there) but whatever was put before the Minister obviously is not enough to attract the Human Rights information.

By the way, yes you can say, oh she is illegal she should leave.

You nor I have not read the transcript or the Minister's decision. We know absolutely nothing to even suggest that the Minister did not consider the revocation of the deportation order. You know full well what the INIS say on their website about applications to Irish where non eu have deportation orders. So its no surprise. What makes it inhumane. Does it have to be spelt out more times, the ECHR does not require States to respect a couple's choice of residency. And when there is a legitimate policy to control immigration etc, the State's interest as a whole can take priority over one couple.


Whether or not they are EU or not, does not make them any less of a person. But, legally, it determines their rights to reside here. We could not just walk into America or Australia now could we?

A majority of the IBC were scammers, end of and you know damn well what most people in this country think of it. (That is not saying they are scammers now, most are/were certaintly hard workers etc - but that is not the point, they should never have been given the opportunity unless they succeeded via asylum) But go and check the stats or the caselaw backgrounds, withdrawals within 6 months of arrival once baby is born. Fathers who now have a new found interest in their families after 4-6 years? sorry, it does not cut ice. They got lucky with the rules at the time. Don't get me wrong, more luck to them, but they should not be complaining now

So Monife, you have no problem with a country being careless as to the control / traffic of people (regardless of race, colour) even though the state's infrastructure, economy can't take it? Schools and health care being over run? If you want to enter a country, why not do it honestly, fairly and by correct procedures. Its not fair on those who spend thousands on visas and permits. It is not a very strigent requirement, stay legal

I think you will find, evading orders from the GNIB is a criminal offence, albeit not serious, but can land someone in jail pending deportation. So too is not having documenation

[Monifé]

So Monife, you have no problem with a country being careless as to the control / traffic of people (regardless of race, colour) even though the state's infrastructure, economy can't take it? Schools and health care being over run? If you want to enter a country, why not do it honestly, fairly and by correct procedures. Its not fair on those who spend thousands on visas and permits. It is not a very strigent requirement, stay legal

I do believe they should enter the country legally in the first place but I do not think MOJ should be so hard on them if their circumstances change. It's very easy to become illegal and they might not be able to renew their visa (not approved..) and have made a life for themselves here so do not go back home.

I think you will find, evading orders from the GNIB is a criminal offence, albeit not serious, but can land someone in jail pending deportation. So too is not having documenation

Well I know the latter all too well but it is ridiculous to be jailed along with murderers, junkies, burglars and other scum just because you don't have a valid identification document.

I'll leave it at that, I was on a bit of a rant in my previous post because your post previous to that annoyed me. Sounded a bit like something Irish Tom would come out with or someone from "Immigration Control Platform" and I thought you were a bit better than that.

[walrusgumble]

So Monife, you have no problem with a country being careless as to the control / traffic of people (regardless of race, colour) even though the state's infrastructure, economy can't take it? Schools and health care being over run? If you want to enter a country, why not do it honestly, fairly and by correct procedures. Its not fair on those who spend thousands on visas and permits. It is not a very strigent requirement, stay legal

I do believe they should enter the country legally in the first place but I do not think MOJ should be so hard on them if their circumstances change. It's very easy to become illegal and they might not be able to renew their visa (not approved..) and have made a life for themselves here so do not go back home.

I think you will find, evading orders from the GNIB is a criminal offence, albeit not serious, but can land someone in jail pending deportation. So too is not having documenation

Well I know the latter all too well but it is ridiculous to be jailed along with murderers, junkies, burglars and other scum just because you don't have a valid identification document.

I'll leave it at that, I was on a bit of a rant in my previous post because your post previous to that annoyed me. Sounded a bit like something Irish Tom would come out with or someone from "Immigration Control Platform" and I thought you were a bit better than that.

Intitially yes, but they enter illegal on false documents and no visas.

I agree with the way they are detained with the "scum". But what are the alternatives? THey have to be detained somewhere. I would agree with the approach the Dutch do, they have them in special detention centres until they are processed and then removed. There, it gives them little chance to engineer other avenues. But, then Offical Ireland would be up in arms, it could also led to a lot of hassle. Other prisoners, like me or you by the way are not required by legislation to have ids

It is very easy to become illegal, but it is also easy to stay legal, that provided you got the status for the right reasons. Visas are refused for a reason. It does not mean you should then find another loophole. Unless you are really thick, or its a case of you have self interest here, please note asylum/refugee status is NOT an avenue to simply make "a life for themselves here so do not go back home." Its for people who have a genuine well founded fear of persecution. What kind of a system, in any country would it be then; refuse on valid grounds but say, "ah its ok now, your got pregnant grand away you go, stay". That happened for over 6 years or so 1997-2004, look at the huge applications rate and births within 6 months of arrival. Look at the difference after the change of laws. the people don't buy it. May I add now, that it would be genuinely, a completely different story if we were talking about work permit holders.

Well Irish Tom and the Immigration Control Platform must be in the department then, because anything been said by me, is simply a rehash of government policy and results, newspaper comments etc see the dail debates and caselaw transcripts. Again, it goes back to the site being here for advices and not for a piss n moan. You honestly think the majority of the state, taxpayers (not just Irish) are happy with the refugee / asylum situation? (now extremely lower rates, gee ever since the economic problems, don't recall it becoming more dangerous).

Why don't you point out where these people are incorrect in any assertions or where I have been incorrect on the importance of having policies... and do your self a favour, don't what a race issue out of it, is not relevant.

Out of interest Monife, prior to your relationship, did you publicly/privately recognise your own British Nationality along with your Irish nationality? Be honest. I know your parents are British, so that would be hard to escape from influence

[Monifé]

Intitially yes, but they enter illegal on false documents and no visas.

So you are stereo-typing now? Not every immigrant who ends up in a precarious immigration situation entered on false documents or illegally. Some people entered on visa's legitimately and they expired, other's work permits might not have been renewed because of a low class catagory of employment.

I agree with the way they are detained with the "scum". But what are the alternatives?

Set up an immigration detention centre that is a little more humane than Mountjoy or Cloverhill.

I would agree with the approach the Dutch do, they have them in special detention centres until they are processed and then removed. There, it gives them little chance to engineer other avenues.

Engineer other avenues? Ok I agree some asylum seekers do EXHAUST the avenues open to them, but what if these are genuine people with genuine fear and persecution? It is very hard to prove something like that in another country, and showing Ireland success rate of less than 1% that are given refugee status, it just shows what the DOJ and Ireland real feel about immigrants, and it is wrong. There should be other procedures in place. Ireland is just basically incompetent at everything it does.

Again, it goes back to the site being here for advices and not for a piss n moan.

What are you doing? Yes I completely agree it is for advice, but you are moaning so why can't we?

where I have been incorrect on the importance of having policies...

Yes it is very important to have policies in place, but when human rights issues come into play, there should be a little more consideration instead of sticking to the draconian immigration policies this country has "tried" to implement, at their detriment.

Out of interest Monife, prior to your relationship, did you publicly/privately recognise your own British Nationality along with your Irish nationality? Be honest. I know your parents are British, so that would be hard to escape from influence

I did actually. While I never had my own British passport until recently, I was on my father's (British) passport when I was a child and have been interested in Britain and my British heritage since I was little. Visited family in Britain too many times to count and until my 20's, visited Britain 2 times or more a year. 3 quarters of my grandparents served in the Army and the Royal Navy. As the years go on, I actually have come to loathe my Irish nationality more and and more.

[walrusgumble]

what stereotpyes? who is? I am referring solely to asylum seekers and not the other class of immigrants such as work permit holders. The lady in the reported case was an asylum seeker wasn't she?

The detention centres, that has got a lot of conversary in holland. Whilst I agree that it is far more humane than mountjoy or cloverhill, it still smacks of prison. that aint good for those just straight out of places like iraq, afganistan, zimbabwe and the like, does it

engineering, no, i am referring to exactly what the lady in the reported case did, find a partner, got married, now claiming residency on another basis. least then the minister won't get accussed of ripping families apart. as for what you are saying, yes, they should get access to all avenues of legal assistance and fairness, impartiality. they do

advice, really?,in fairness i don't point this at you; all i see is complaining about issues and acting as if ye are shocked. its a response to those who run yer mouths off about the country and what the law is suppose to be without having any consideration for the state's view and why its there, for what the laws and case law have said. some come out with groundless accusations and are not willing to listen to what is going on and why its going on.

policy and human rights, absolutely, fair enough. but what human rights are there when its decided in countless coi and other decision making bodies in Europe that some countries are being persecuted. deportation is not always a severe human right violtion. obviously, if it was to return them to a dangerous country then fair enough. i don't want to sound silly as its no real comparison, but since the report noted that the deportation was a "death sentence" isn't it a violation of human rights when a family member is sent to prison and separated from family? back to the point though, this person got her chance to explain her case and why she was persected, she failed. as for the percentage of successful cases, please refer to the inis, rat and rac websites to get your facts in order. look at the success rates, but more importantly look at the countries that apply. it will explain why its so low.


considering you would invoke eu treaty on two accounts, an irish living in britain and a british returning to britain ala singh (might not apply in your case due to your partner's status, who knows) would you not be willing to make the big sacrifice and move over for a short time in order to be together?(obviously trying to have a job or college in place first) what do you think the result would be if you were in england and relying on domestic british law (and not an irish citizen) ? would your partner have got status?

[fatty patty]

Complaining is a citizen's right in a democratic society. So dont be shocked by it. I am sure other immigrants/citizen does it elsewhere, even the irish in oz/states. In a lot of countries there are laws so the department of immigration dont have a choice but to abide by what is written in the book...even if they don't like...but the thing about ireland is that its under discretion...now if minister is a wise man he will use it accordingly. Imagine if this case goes to ECtHR and the above mentioned family wins the case, it becomes law so minister wether he like it or lump it has to abide by it (just like the 6 months wait on EU family members without a STAMP4 to name a few) but as i say if he is a wise man he will use his discretion and quietly grant status, the same happened in a case of an irish man's chinese mother-in-law case the department had settle outside of court, as if it would have gone through it would have become enforceable. (although i heard on the boards here that the department later did a youie on it)

Every one deserves atleast a second chance in life, immigrants are no different. If an immigrant had overstayed/came as an asylum seeker or whatever....he/she is here now...give a second chance and show compassion, see how he/she can benefit and harness their skills (i know sounds like a bit too leftist)...but what i mean is if they became spouses of EU citizens, dont treat every one with same brush that this is done just as a marraige of convenience...yes marriage of convenience true on an immigrant part (and EU spouse knows this...this is why they engaged in the relationship thinking that no one is taking my darling away) but at the end of the day he/she is part of a family of an EU/Irish citizen. A person sitting on a desk with pile of paper and computer screen/statistics infront of them would not get the full picture.

[Monifé]

would you not be willing to make the big sacrifice and move over for a short time in order to be together?(obviously trying to have a job or college in place first)

You can't invoke rights of the Singh ruling unless you are a qualified family member, ie: spouse, well not in Britain anyway.

And also with Singh, you can't be a student, you have to be an economic migrant worker, you need to be employed.

It is definitely an option. If we fail with the Judicial Review, then we will be seriously looking at that avenue (probably because it is the only one left to us). But financially cannot do that at all yet. I am the bread winner (on a meagre salary I might add and because he is not allowed work) so no savings or anything. We would need to have those kind of things in order before we think about moving somewhere while I am looking for a job.