Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[Morrisj]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

As it stands, a Romanian national entering Ireland or the UK for the first time and wishes to reside for more than 3 months, but, can't afford to be self employed or an insured student and would rather work, has less rights than the non eu parent of a minor eu child. Ie THey will have no restriction to a work environment.

If A german/French etc national lived in Ireland for 3 years, works 2 years, marries a non EU national on the third year, he /she may have difficulties with their family reunification application. The same for those who wish to seek permanent residency but can't proove that the EU national worked for 5 full years.

There has been no talk of the Romanian /Bulgarian embargo, but it is suppose to end in 2014. But I am talking about right now, at this very minute. Hardly equitable is it?

How are Irish adults been discriminated? They have access to work, they knew the risks of the spouse being deported. THe true facts of the cases involving the deportation order fathers is that the mother has already status to stay and chooses to stay in Ireland instead of returning with their beloved husband. The child gets to stay in Ireland, as per some of the court transcripts, some of the fathers did not seem too bothered when they only came over when the mother did the deed and got status, ie 2-3 years later.

There is no twisting of the facts, read the f*cking facts of the caselaw. www.bailii.org and www.courts.ie. The stats from RAT and ORAC websites do not lie. You don't want to face the truth that is your problem. Even the ECj acknoweldges that the EU is not an open house. Point out from the facts where I am incorrect. The world and their mother knows whats going on. You now going to deny that work permits are not required at this time for Romanians coming here for the first time? You are going to deny that EU spouses are legally being refused family reunification of their adult mothers and wives as they don't meet the directive?

As for intelligence, ha, your blind. There is no attempt to be a smart mule. As of today, the position is as I have stated and you have not made an intelligent effort to rebuff the actual problems. Jesus even the highly intelligent High Court Judges wishes to return to Europe to seek clarification on how and who this case effects.

The reason for comparing adult Romanians and non eu parents of eu children (mostly, with these effected cases, from the facts of the case, failed asylum seekers & illegals) They managed to side step procedures by simply having a child, which may not have been conceived in the EU, yet genuine EU citizens eg Romanian/Bulgarians have restrictions put in front of them. Simply because there is a child involved. It ain't the child who increases the capitalist flow of labour / money, is it? But more importantly, is goes far beyond what Chen stated ie the parent should at least be self sufficient / not going to be a burden on the State. THis will not happen here. Yes there will be intitial difficulties for the parent as they won't get certain social welfare payments immeditatelty but in time they will. There are no jobs available and there won't be for a while. We have nationals leaving the country and yet the member states, despite the unaccountability and impunity of judges, will be effected. Some of the reported cases involved deported fathers who had committed crime and are highley unlikely to get work, moreover they pi*sed their away all the chances they got. Thankfully, this judgment will not be as far reaching as expected.

Ah the last bit, "ah sure I don't care as long as I am sorted" still lack of equality hence the point of raising the matter. Its rather valid.

simply having a child you say? what a pity i really feel so ashamed of u.Where the f..k in the world is it simple to have a child?having a child is not f..k simple son,do u have kids?if no then il understand ur lack of maturity,if yes then have you been there when your wife or gf was having the baby?no disrespect but if u were there then i dont think you would have posted that statement.

You know what?now that i have concluded you are either a staff of the Doj or somehow related or working with them i il end further conversation with you.

To be honest your previous post made no sense at all because you are trying to change the topic to another level,nice try but go try that with someone else not me.

What does the Court has to clarify? It was even said Interpreted in the ruling,go check your dictionary and look for the meaning of precludes then look for the meaning of national measures/member states maybe with that you will understand very well that its well noted that only public policy security and health can each memberstates use when deciding applications from the new ruling.

I still dont get it clear why Judge Cooke wants more clairification when the rulling is very clear that even a 7 years old baby will understand the ruling perfectly,probably because most of the Judicial Review Hearing regarding deportation order that was enforced concerning parents of Irish Citizen Children were made by him.Please i repeat check the meaning of precludes,national measures and memberstates infact i dont think you have the right judgement as of 8 March 2011,find it below for your review

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML

Any other reply to your statements on your previous post would be pointless because they are actually irrelevant to the topic as you are just trying to divert from the topic anyways nice try Mr.

Do that to someone else not me and yes i looked the meaning of beloved and you are not far from the definition

I can't believe you would go against a child's right,please check the meaning of child or children or kids infants as well and finally i feel real disgusted seeing your other posts on a different forum here is the link to your posts on politics.ie

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-22.html

[Johnkenn]

Can someone explain more to me about this Zambrano case to me. Is it going to be in effect in Ireland now? Has INIS made any comment about it

[walrusgumble]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

As it stands, a Romanian national entering Ireland or the UK for the first time and wishes to reside for more than 3 months, but, can't afford to be self employed or an insured student and would rather work, has less rights than the non eu parent of a minor eu child. Ie THey will have no restriction to a work environment.

If A german/French etc national lived in Ireland for 3 years, works 2 years, marries a non EU national on the third year, he /she may have difficulties with their family reunification application. The same for those who wish to seek permanent residency but can't proove that the EU national worked for 5 full years.

There has been no talk of the Romanian /Bulgarian embargo, but it is suppose to end in 2014. But I am talking about right now, at this very minute. Hardly equitable is it?

How are Irish adults been discriminated? They have access to work, they knew the risks of the spouse being deported. THe true facts of the cases involving the deportation order fathers is that the mother has already status to stay and chooses to stay in Ireland instead of returning with their beloved husband. The child gets to stay in Ireland, as per some of the court transcripts, some of the fathers did not seem too bothered when they only came over when the mother did the deed and got status, ie 2-3 years later.

There is no twisting of the facts, read the f*cking facts of the caselaw. www.bailii.org and www.courts.ie. The stats from RAT and ORAC websites do not lie. You don't want to face the truth that is your problem. Even the ECj acknoweldges that the EU is not an open house. Point out from the facts where I am incorrect. The world and their mother knows whats going on. You now going to deny that work permits are not required at this time for Romanians coming here for the first time? You are going to deny that EU spouses are legally being refused family reunification of their adult mothers and wives as they don't meet the directive?

As for intelligence, ha, your blind. There is no attempt to be a smart mule. As of today, the position is as I have stated and you have not made an intelligent effort to rebuff the actual problems. Jesus even the highly intelligent High Court Judges wishes to return to Europe to seek clarification on how and who this case effects.

The reason for comparing adult Romanians and non eu parents of eu children (mostly, with these effected cases, from the facts of the case, failed asylum seekers & illegals) They managed to side step procedures by simply having a child, which may not have been conceived in the EU, yet genuine EU citizens eg Romanian/Bulgarians have restrictions put in front of them. Simply because there is a child involved. It ain't the child who increases the capitalist flow of labour / money, is it? But more importantly, is goes far beyond what Chen stated ie the parent should at least be self sufficient / not going to be a burden on the State. THis will not happen here. Yes there will be intitial difficulties for the parent as they won't get certain social welfare payments immeditatelty but in time they will. There are no jobs available and there won't be for a while. We have nationals leaving the country and yet the member states, despite the unaccountability and impunity of judges, will be effected. Some of the reported cases involved deported fathers who had committed crime and are highley unlikely to get work, moreover they pi*sed their away all the chances they got. Thankfully, this judgment will not be as far reaching as expected.

Ah the last bit, "ah sure I don't care as long as I am sorted" still lack of equality hence the point of raising the matter. Its rather valid.

simply having a child you say? what a pity i really feel so ashamed of u.Where the f..k in the world is it simple to have a child?having a child is not f..k simple son,do u have kids?if no then il understand ur lack of maturity,if yes then have you been there when your wife or gf was having the baby?no disrespect but if u were there then i dont think you would have posted that statement.

You know what?now that i have concluded you are either a staff of the Doj or somehow related or working with them i il end further conversation with you.

To be honest your previous post made no sense at all because you are trying to change the topic to another level,nice try but go try that with someone else not me.

What does the Court has to clarify? It was even said Interpreted in the ruling,go check your dictionary and look for the meaning of precludes then look for the meaning of national measures/member states maybe with that you will understand very well that its well noted that only public policy security and health can each memberstates use when deciding applications from the new ruling.

I still dont get it clear why Judge Cooke wants more clairification when the rulling is very clear that even a 7 years old baby will understand the ruling perfectly,probably because most of the Judicial Review Hearing regarding deportation order that was enforced concerning parents of Irish Citizen Children were made by him.Please i repeat check the meaning of precludes,national measures and memberstates infact i dont think you have the right judgement as of 8 March 2011,find it below for your review

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML

Any other reply to your statements on your previous post would be pointless because they are actually irrelevant to the topic as you are just trying to divert from the topic anyways nice try Mr.

Do that to someone else not me and yes i looked the meaning of beloved and you are not far from the definition

I can't believe you would go against a child's right,please check the meaning of child or children or kids infants as well and finally i feel real disgusted seeing your other posts on a different forum here is the link to your posts on politics.ie

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-22.html

That is the most navie drivel

Actually speaking to asylum seekers from 1998-2004 who came to Ireland, the automatic citizenship rule was the main reason for coming. It is of no coindence that many of these people withdrew their asylum cases once the child was born. Yes it is as simple as having a child, to suggest it was all an accident is lies. How many of them actually paid their hospital bills? Very few. Heavily pregnant women came over (despite medical advise suggesting it should not travel on planes) and gave the auld speil about ju ju magic, shrines, cults etc even though their countries were not war zones. When asked why they did not move to another part of their country they say, oh i had no one there for me, as if they would in Ireland? Look that transcripts and evidence can be found on the net, so I ain't making this up, honestly. Wake up and maybe talk to people in the Rotunda during this time. I feel sorry that you are so guillable. Of course its simple if the State are going to provide financial assistance like child benefit, lone parents etc. You are trying to distort what was said intentionally, of course its not easy to physically give birth and control crying children and ensure that they remain in good health.

I am being told that I am twisting things. Actually Google Zambrano case for yourself, and read the blogs and websites that commenting on them., You will see quite a few how have expressed surprise at the decision. You are ashmamed of by raising valid points of argument and discussion as to how dodgy this case looks compared to the rights of other EU citizens? If the member states were not happy with teh baby boom fads in their respective countries they would not have changed their citizenship as of birth laws would they? Even Belgium changed them. Its no coindicendence that the asylum rates lowered after 2005 and the rates of children born to non eu people who did not have status also lowered.

So what is your country's position? What would they have done? Where are you from?


"You know what?now that i have concluded you are either a staff of the Doj or somehow related or working with them i il end further conversation with you."

Well done Sherlock. I have previously admitted in other threads that I had worked in the Department of Justice a couple of years ago, albeit, not in Immigration Division but i had the luxury of seeing what all the hullabulu was about during the "baby boom". At least my comments are not dishonest regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I no longer work in the civil service. Feel free to actually check out the stats from ORAC, RAT, INIS, Rotunda Hosptial, Central Statistics if you doubt what anything.

It is people like you that are raving how enquitable the law was and its ye that point out / lecture the wonders of EU law, yet when its validly put to you that this case at this time puts non connected non Eu's parents (of children who should never have been nationals if the countries were awake) in a nicer position than other EU members who are required to follow the Directive. You have no answer and you won't acknowledge the the simple case scenerio and the problems that it will face. No, instead, you say it does not make sense. Its a bit like Irish class, teacher mumbles something you don't know what they are saying so you come out with "Níl aois agam", or Manuel "que"

It is very reasonable to bring Romanian and Bulgarians to this topic. THeir rights are dilluted by the work permit requirement (you are either in the EU or your not as you would say) yet a lucky non eu person who was illegal / their status was not safe (i don't refer to legal non eu's) who managed to sneak into loopholes caused by liberal citizenship laws (hey, you are right ya can't blame them) will have clear access to EU laws . It is unfair. An EU citizen who worked for about 1 year in another EU states and looses job and then gets married to a non EU person, might not succeed in family reunification application if he does not comply with Directive 2004/38 EC, yet a non EU parent simply by giving birth has no such problems. Is that fair? This is why these scenerios are given. So I will ask you again, if these situations occur, do you really think that it is fair?that a non EU parent who is no more than 2 minutes in EU gets defintie rights to be with EU family as opposed to long estabilshed EU citizens who loose job. Hey I aint blaming the immigrant , your are right its the system.

You have failed to make comment on those positions, is it really a case that you are a non EU with vested interest in this case, and could not really give a fiddlers about other EU citizens and their rights? The I am all right jack brigade who bandy on about the merits of EU law but played dumb when challenged on how it has also caused unfairness to other nationals.


"Do that to someone else not me and yes i looked the meaning of beloved and you are not far from the definition"

On what basis you consider me dearly beloved. It is not dearly beloved to have an immigration system. It is also not dearly beloved to tell someone that democratic countries do not accept that there is such thing as open boarders for all. It is also not dearly beloved to be concerned that their countries and Union laws have been abused. Nor is it dearly beloved to have a problem with illegal immigrants breaking the law and getting into a state easier (by challenging their offences) as oppose to an immigrant who actually follows the law and its procedures. Sure the hard working legal immigrant must really wonder why the hell he / she bothered to fork out all that money for work permits and attend so many interviews for jobs/fret over loosing that work permit; when instead all they really had to do before 2005 was make up some phoney asylum story (assuming they aint from war countries) not neccessarily have their real passport, come over pregnant, avail of the citizenship laws, wrap the green flag around them, demand that they be taken in and start shout the R word when challenged or looked at sideways

As for Judge Cooke, I would pay more heed to a judge who has spent time at the European Courts than lay people. I understand, reading the Irish Times, that he is questioning whether Artilce 20 TEU as Lisbon Treaty comes into force and applies to a number of cases before him which were intitiated before the Lisbon Treaty (ie the most up to date Treaty) He also questions whether the child's right to stay in Europe is really affected if one parent is deported but the other parent has legal status and decides to stay in Ireland with the child. I accept its rather odd. Since when does a judge give or enforce deportation orders? Maybe you should check what the meaning, Judicial Review means and the powers of a judge in that scenerio in line with the large legislative power of the Minister before predicting. Maybe read a few transcripts

"I don't think" Maybe you shouldn't , maybe you should get your facts rights. I have read the official transcript from the europa.eu site

Instead of repeating what others are saying, explain why my states are irrelevant. No plagarism now. Some people claim Maastrict always was interpreted the way it is now. That is funny, Nice and Lisbon have been in for such a long time.

Keep your emotions out of the matter. "think of the children" the law aint suppose to have emotions and don't lecture me about my views, I am sure that your country are not much use on children's rights. The children are also citizens of those parents countries and their human rights will mostly be protected there. to suggest others despite clear evidence is a tad bit dearly beloved.

As for my comments on politics.ie ; at least they are true, honest and accurate. Even non Irish recognise this. At least they can be supported with evidence and links. There is nothing knew on it and its the views of a majority of people here. So truth and accuracy is better than been "disguisting". Everything is disguisting to you when it does not suit your interests.

[walrusgumble]

There are a lot of so called experts willing to stamp down on my comments without thinking (or simply copying a pasting other people's views as their own) and mix it up as being discusting or worse(or stupid) dearly beloved So here are some respected articles outlining the implications of the case . I wish I simply pasted these links earlier to save the hassle.


Zambrano case: potential help for partners of UK nationals « NCADC news
http://ncadc.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/z ... nationals/

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship- ... situations

A bit more intelligence and toleration of other views would be a good thing next time there is a debate. And if that is not possible, how about backing yourself up with facts. Many of ye have vested interest in these cases, so ye should leave your emotions at the door.

[Obie]

I am not sure if the links above add anything new to the discussion and supposedly mature debate we have been having about the implication and scope of the Zambrano ruling. If anything, i believe it supports the argument of the pro-zambrano camp, if anything like that exist of course.

[walrusgumble]

I am not sure if the links above add anything new to the discussion and supposedly mature debate we have been having about the implication and scope of the Zambrano ruling. If anything, i believe it supports the argument of the pro-zambrano camp, if anything like that exist of course.

the purpose of adding the links is simply to show that my queries about how good or bad this zambrano case are not a dearly beloved rant but genuine opinions that happen to be shared by other,far more respected experts with no hidden agenda. and more to the point, the most important point, it is a rebuttal of suggestions as to the comment that i have a stran interpretation of eu law as it was traditionally understood throughout europe before this case. there is also a valid complaint about europe (the issue could have been anything and not neccessarily on immigrants) that eu law in adversely infringing on national law which they had no competence. when the eu constitution was drafted, alot of countries were against it - france and holland said no via a referendum and the politicans were not happy to prevented them from having a voice.i believe that decisions like this are undemocractic as they were not powers that the eu people did not intend to give. is not specified in the treaty amendments. most europeans do not want a union like the usa, we want our own independence. the matter could have been anything, it just happened to be on immigration on this occassion.

had i put them in without making any comment, as a point of saying, don't get too excited about this case just yet as there are a lot of questions to be answered. there are a lot of people here commenting about how badly ireland is. yet when its put to them, that this case until confirmed may , unintentionally give far too much favour to non eu citizens as oppose to adult eu citizens that have spent all their lives in the union. they are valid questions and some of ye s&it on them in fear it won't help you. ye lot complain of a lack of equity etc, but in truth ye don't give a damn as long as you get your way ( fair enough i suppose) one would hope that an eu citizen who comes here and wishes to bring their non eu family over are able to pull the treaty right of citizenship (without need for self sufficiency etc) if they fail to comply with the directive 2004/38 ec. if not, be prepared for a lot of resentment from them. (just to make clear so you don't come back with the line, "yeah but these children are irish", a german or other eu has a much right to live in ireland as an irish, provided of course they comply with the directive.) some how i feel some self sufficiency is required.

the articles merely explain the true implications zambrano causes., which is what you understand it to be it won't change anything, until the next cases, hence its "pro zambrano stance". but the there are a few short lines from the maastrict university artilce provides an clear and strong undertone that raises the potential problems and inequality that it unquittingly has now caused, as raised by me.

[Morrisj]

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

As it stands, a Romanian national entering Ireland or the UK for the first time and wishes to reside for more than 3 months, but, can't afford to be self employed or an insured student and would rather work, has less rights than the non eu parent of a minor eu child. Ie THey will have no restriction to a work environment.

If A german/French etc national lived in Ireland for 3 years, works 2 years, marries a non EU national on the third year, he /she may have difficulties with their family reunification application. The same for those who wish to seek permanent residency but can't proove that the EU national worked for 5 full years.

There has been no talk of the Romanian /Bulgarian embargo, but it is suppose to end in 2014. But I am talking about right now, at this very minute. Hardly equitable is it?

How are Irish adults been discriminated? They have access to work, they knew the risks of the spouse being deported. THe true facts of the cases involving the deportation order fathers is that the mother has already status to stay and chooses to stay in Ireland instead of returning with their beloved husband. The child gets to stay in Ireland, as per some of the court transcripts, some of the fathers did not seem too bothered when they only came over when the mother did the deed and got status, ie 2-3 years later.

There is no twisting of the facts, read the f*cking facts of the caselaw. www.bailii.org and www.courts.ie. The stats from RAT and ORAC websites do not lie. You don't want to face the truth that is your problem. Even the ECj acknoweldges that the EU is not an open house. Point out from the facts where I am incorrect. The world and their mother knows whats going on. You now going to deny that work permits are not required at this time for Romanians coming here for the first time? You are going to deny that EU spouses are legally being refused family reunification of their adult mothers and wives as they don't meet the directive?

As for intelligence, ha, your blind. There is no attempt to be a smart mule. As of today, the position is as I have stated and you have not made an intelligent effort to rebuff the actual problems. Jesus even the highly intelligent High Court Judges wishes to return to Europe to seek clarification on how and who this case effects.

The reason for comparing adult Romanians and non eu parents of eu children (mostly, with these effected cases, from the facts of the case, failed asylum seekers & illegals) They managed to side step procedures by simply having a child, which may not have been conceived in the EU, yet genuine EU citizens eg Romanian/Bulgarians have restrictions put in front of them. Simply because there is a child involved. It ain't the child who increases the capitalist flow of labour / money, is it? But more importantly, is goes far beyond what Chen stated ie the parent should at least be self sufficient / not going to be a burden on the State. THis will not happen here. Yes there will be intitial difficulties for the parent as they won't get certain social welfare payments immeditatelty but in time they will. There are no jobs available and there won't be for a while. We have nationals leaving the country and yet the member states, despite the unaccountability and impunity of judges, will be effected. Some of the reported cases involved deported fathers who had committed crime and are highley unlikely to get work, moreover they pi*sed their away all the chances they got. Thankfully, this judgment will not be as far reaching as expected.

Ah the last bit, "ah sure I don't care as long as I am sorted" still lack of equality hence the point of raising the matter. Its rather valid.

simply having a child you say? what a pity i really feel so ashamed of u.Where the f..k in the world is it simple to have a child?having a child is not f..k simple son,do u have kids?if no then il understand ur lack of maturity,if yes then have you been there when your wife or gf was having the baby?no disrespect but if u were there then i dont think you would have posted that statement.

You know what?now that i have concluded you are either a staff of the Doj or somehow related or working with them i il end further conversation with you.

To be honest your previous post made no sense at all because you are trying to change the topic to another level,nice try but go try that with someone else not me.

What does the Court has to clarify? It was even said Interpreted in the ruling,go check your dictionary and look for the meaning of precludes then look for the meaning of national measures/member states maybe with that you will understand very well that its well noted that only public policy security and health can each memberstates use when deciding applications from the new ruling.

I still dont get it clear why Judge Cooke wants more clairification when the rulling is very clear that even a 7 years old baby will understand the ruling perfectly,probably because most of the Judicial Review Hearing regarding deportation order that was enforced concerning parents of Irish Citizen Children were made by him.Please i repeat check the meaning of precludes,national measures and memberstates infact i dont think you have the right judgement as of 8 March 2011,find it below for your review

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML

Any other reply to your statements on your previous post would be pointless because they are actually irrelevant to the topic as you are just trying to divert from the topic anyways nice try Mr.

Do that to someone else not me and yes i looked the meaning of beloved and you are not far from the definition

I can't believe you would go against a child's right,please check the meaning of child or children or kids infants as well and finally i feel real disgusted seeing your other posts on a different forum here is the link to your posts on politics.ie

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-22.html

That is the most navie drivel

Actually speaking to asylum seekers from 1998-2004 who came to Ireland, the automatic citizenship rule was the main reason for coming. It is of no coindence that many of these people withdrew their asylum cases once the child was born. Yes it is as simple as having a child, to suggest it was all an accident is lies. How many of them actually paid their hospital bills? Very few. Heavily pregnant women came over (despite medical advise suggesting it should not travel on planes) and gave the auld speil about ju ju magic, shrines, cults etc even though their countries were not war zones. When asked why they did not move to another part of their country they say, oh i had no one there for me, as if they would in Ireland? Look that transcripts and evidence can be found on the net, so I ain't making this up, honestly. Wake up and maybe talk to people in the Rotunda during this time. I feel sorry that you are so guillable. Of course its simple if the State are going to provide financial assistance like child benefit, lone parents etc. You are trying to distort what was said intentionally, of course its not easy to physically give birth and control crying children and ensure that they remain in good health.

I am being told that I am twisting things. Actually Google Zambrano case for yourself, and read the blogs and websites that commenting on them., You will see quite a few how have expressed surprise at the decision. You are ashmamed of by raising valid points of argument and discussion as to how dodgy this case looks compared to the rights of other EU citizens? If the member states were not happy with teh baby boom fads in their respective countries they would not have changed their citizenship as of birth laws would they? Even Belgium changed them. Its no coindicendence that the asylum rates lowered after 2005 and the rates of children born to non eu people who did not have status also lowered.

So what is your country's position? What would they have done? Where are you from?


"You know what?now that i have concluded you are either a staff of the Doj or somehow related or working with them i il end further conversation with you."

Well done Sherlock. I have previously admitted in other threads that I had worked in the Department of Justice a couple of years ago, albeit, not in Immigration Division but i had the luxury of seeing what all the hullabulu was about during the "baby boom". At least my comments are not dishonest regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I no longer work in the civil service. Feel free to actually check out the stats from ORAC, RAT, INIS, Rotunda Hosptial, Central Statistics if you doubt what anything.

It is people like you that are raving how enquitable the law was and its ye that point out / lecture the wonders of EU law, yet when its validly put to you that this case at this time puts non connected non Eu's parents (of children who should never have been nationals if the countries were awake) in a nicer position than other EU members who are required to follow the Directive. You have no answer and you won't acknowledge the the simple case scenerio and the problems that it will face. No, instead, you say it does not make sense. Its a bit like Irish class, teacher mumbles something you don't know what they are saying so you come out with "Níl aois agam", or Manuel "que"

It is very reasonable to bring Romanian and Bulgarians to this topic. THeir rights are dilluted by the work permit requirement (you are either in the EU or your not as you would say) yet a lucky non eu person who was illegal / their status was not safe (i don't refer to legal non eu's) who managed to sneak into loopholes caused by liberal citizenship laws (hey, you are right ya can't blame them) will have clear access to EU laws . It is unfair. An EU citizen who worked for about 1 year in another EU states and looses job and then gets married to a non EU person, might not succeed in family reunification application if he does not comply with Directive 2004/38 EC, yet a non EU parent simply by giving birth has no such problems. Is that fair? This is why these scenerios are given. So I will ask you again, if these situations occur, do you really think that it is fair?that a non EU parent who is no more than 2 minutes in EU gets defintie rights to be with EU family as opposed to long estabilshed EU citizens who loose job. Hey I aint blaming the immigrant , your are right its the system.

You have failed to make comment on those positions, is it really a case that you are a non EU with vested interest in this case, and could not really give a fiddlers about other EU citizens and their rights? The I am all right jack brigade who bandy on about the merits of EU law but played dumb when challenged on how it has also caused unfairness to other nationals.


"Do that to someone else not me and yes i looked the meaning of beloved and you are not far from the definition"

On what basis you consider me dearly beloved. It is not dearly beloved to have an immigration system. It is also not dearly beloved to tell someone that democratic countries do not accept that there is such thing as open boarders for all. It is also not dearly beloved to be concerned that their countries and Union laws have been abused. Nor is it dearly beloved to have a problem with illegal immigrants breaking the law and getting into a state easier (by challenging their offences) as oppose to an immigrant who actually follows the law and its procedures. Sure the hard working legal immigrant must really wonder why the hell he / she bothered to fork out all that money for work permits and attend so many interviews for jobs/fret over loosing that work permit; when instead all they really had to do before 2005 was make up some phoney asylum story (assuming they aint from war countries) not neccessarily have their real passport, come over pregnant, avail of the citizenship laws, wrap the green flag around them, demand that they be taken in and start shout the R word when challenged or looked at sideways

As for Judge Cooke, I would pay more heed to a judge who has spent time at the European Courts than lay people. I understand, reading the Irish Times, that he is questioning whether Artilce 20 TEU as Lisbon Treaty comes into force and applies to a number of cases before him which were intitiated before the Lisbon Treaty (ie the most up to date Treaty) He also questions whether the child's right to stay in Europe is really affected if one parent is deported but the other parent has legal status and decides to stay in Ireland with the child. I accept its rather odd. Since when does a judge give or enforce deportation orders? Maybe you should check what the meaning, Judicial Review means and the powers of a judge in that scenerio in line with the large legislative power of the Minister before predicting. Maybe read a few transcripts

"I don't think" Maybe you shouldn't , maybe you should get your facts rights. I have read the official transcript from the europa.eu site

Instead of repeating what others are saying, explain why my states are irrelevant. No plagarism now. Some people claim Maastrict always was interpreted the way it is now. That is funny, Nice and Lisbon have been in for such a long time.

Keep your emotions out of the matter. "think of the children" the law aint suppose to have emotions and don't lecture me about my views, I am sure that your country are not much use on children's rights. The children are also citizens of those parents countries and their human rights will mostly be protected there. to suggest others despite clear evidence is a tad bit dearly beloved.

As for my comments on politics.ie ; at least they are true, honest and accurate. Even non Irish recognise this. At least they can be supported with evidence and links. There is nothing knew on it and its the views of a majority of people here. So truth and accuracy is better than been "disguisting". Everything is disguisting to you when it does not suit your interests.

I already said il end further conversation with you but i think i should finalize my correspondence with you.

First of all,I think you should be the one checking the meaning of Judicial Reviews or maybe you lack understanding with my previous statement so il simply break it down for you again.

When I said most of the Judgments (Hearing) regarding deportation of parents with Irish Citizen Child/Children were made by Judge Cooke,I didn't mean that the court makes provision for the enforcement of a deportation order. As we know there are more than 100 pending reviews concerning parents of Irish Citizen Children perhaps Judge Cooke made some Judgments on similar cases already and majority of the cases, its either leave was refused or relief was also refused which definitely means deportation from the department (repatriation /GNIB) i.e when the applicants didn't win the case then they are automatically deported isn't?

My point from the above is, did Judge Cooke decide to adjourn the case saying some Irish case or cases will go to the Ecj for clarification because of the fact that he personally made the judgment on some similar cases which was negative to the applicants which led to their deportations and now that the Ecj ruling as of 8 March 2011 was made, does that mean his previous Judgment regarding such cases is now invalid and he's trying to protect that?


There was an obligation from Judge Cooke to the department to take formal position on the ruling what does that mean? at same time Judge Cooke said clarifications like if the ruling applies to if one parent has residency with the other facing deportation, or if the parents are illegal which baffles me because it's like he's telling the department to take formal position and indirectly giving them guides on a possible challenge they can bring up against cases under this new Ecj ruling.

If it was to be the case where he said deportation evaders,serious criminals e.t.c then that would have been an issue of fair/relevant clarification needed! precise you can't call every asylum seeker a cheat or whatever harsh name you use because some are genuine tho majority are fakes but why using the bad ones to define the good ones? It's not new to me there is just this hatred for asylum seekers from Africa especially Nigeria.

I'm glad you accepted you have worked with d Department interesting but one thing my grandma used to say to me is,Chameleon changes its color only when on disguise....so if you are really intelligent as i thought you should know the meaning of that lil parable precise you didn't work with the immigration unit while u were with d department so dont say what u dont know simply because of what you were told by your colleagues working with the immigration unit as at then.

You still haven't made a relevant statement regarding this topic,your last relevant statement seems to cease on your last post before your new topic about the Romanians and Bulgarians. Please take your time and read the posts on this topic and you will see you are diverting to a new topic,come on the forum is enough for you to start a new topic like (Romanians and Bulgarians requirement as the topic then at the side of the topic you can add an icon of a crying face to show your emotion) or better still you can start a new topic like (Non nationals including an icon of a sad face to show your cunny itch/hatred for them) because as far as i know this topic is Zambrano-people seeking residency on this case.

I'm surprised you still haven't realized that you are diverting from the main topic and your posts are becoming irrelevant.



This is what you are doing

For example on this same topic i started talking about a black teenager that was killed a year ago in Ireland by some Irish teenagers and il say if it was to be the other way round,there would have been murder,strict monitoring on every black person e.t.c.........this wouldn't make any sense and i would really feel so stupid to have posted something like that on this topic but thats what you are doing you are saying things that doesn't match with the topic making your post so irrelevant and trying to cover it up this is what you always say.....youse can't just go on for a debate without taking offense, youse just don't want to accept the truth, lol what truth?

From a wise observation, are you saying you are also an opponent to "Reverse Discrimination must end" ? yes i think you are cos if you have a problem with non nationals with Irish Children benefiting more than the Romanians/Bulgarians then what about an Irish Citizen having an Irish Citizen child with a non national? oh i know what you want to say,that's his/her business for having a baby or marrying a non national isn't that what you want to say?or you still gonna be angry that since there is a non national involved,the Romanians and Bulgarians's requirement should stop so that the Irish citizen with his/her family made up of non national(s) wouldn't benefit more than Romanian and Bulgarian? or at the other hand are you gonna say,in the case where one of the parent is Irish is not included in your so called debate about the Romanians/Bulgarians benefiting less than Non nationals? because saying that as well means you are creating what we call first class irish children /second class irish children i.e Irish Children of Non national parents compared to Irish children of Irish parent(s) which is completely wrong?

I think with the above you have nothing else to say except you just want to write to exercise your hands, I would have been so glad to participate on your so called debate if it was the case where there is a substantial and revelant point to oppose my argument.

The economy of the country is going down,no jobs e.t.c are excuses people like you make up to send a non-national away ffs being selective about Jobs doesnt mean unemployment, there r many hard jobs like cleaning and lifting most non nationals are willing to do to contribute to the economy if a slight opportunity was given to them but all they want is a professional like Doctors, Nurses E.t.c and after such workers looses their Job they are forced to return to their home country sometimes after proper integration to the society or starting a family life.

I came accross a post in politics.ie made by someone who seems like your twin brother,he said most deported parents of irish child (ren) wont be allowed to return to join their family because the Ecj ruling refered to parents of whom their children are dependent so therefore how many deported parents have sent money to their Irish children showing support and the child's dependency on them but your twin brother forgot to think properly that those deported parents were been denied their right of residence and to work,so how can they support their child when their right was been denied and they were eventually deported?

Tho the person whom i think is related to you cos youse have this cunny itch posted the statement as given above,I still feel comfortable and relaxed dealing with such person because atleast his objections where within the Zambrano issue unlike yours diverting to the west east north and south.

I repeat their Goverment should fight that chain off or wait till 2014, i mean the Bulgarians and Romanians, if you were having an itch for non nationals who will be using this zambrano case as an abuse to the Immigration system in the future,there wouldn't be any problem because i defo have an itch to such people too but as we can see each member states have adjusted their Citizenship just that Belgium was one of the last to adjust so the chances for abuse is extremely low with the adjustment.


so tell me Mr what exactly are you talking about ?

You still havent replied my question mate,since u r so concerned about non nationals and the Romanians what about the Irish that has been discriminated i.e other eu citizens having more right than the irish in Ireland ohhhh you gonna say Eu citizens have the right to have more rights btw them but non nationals are exlcuded? Isn't that an itch for non nationals? eu citizens have more right than the Irish in Ireland for example a french lady can get married to a non national and gain residency and shes allowed to family reunification,all this happens cos of marriage but an Irish lady who is married to a non national even with kids still dont have the right of family reunification and all compare to the french lady yet a new ecj ruling has come to favour the Irish ladies in that position but just because it is in favour of the non nationals as well you are grumbling just like the name walsgumble.

[walrusgumble]

"First of all,I think you should be the one checking the meaning of Judicial Reviews or maybe you lack understanding with my previous statement so il simply break it down for you again."

My response
I would like to actually hear your view or lack thereof, as to what Judicial Review actually is. I would suggest that you go into a decent library and pick up a book on Judicial Review - Marc de Blacam. In areas on non EU competence (traditionally, areas not involving exercise of freemovement of EU citizens and traditional attitude of what EU citizenship meant) the Minister for Justice had quite alot of discretion in deciding Immigration matters. He is expected to be in a better position to dictate the needs of the state, as he is elected by the people. Judges are not in a position to do so. When it goes before a court , the judge rule that they often don't have the power to over rule the Ministers.

They can only do so when there is a decision that is disproportionate and flies in the face of common sense (see Meadows Supreme Court 2010), serious errors of facts and laws (in this instance Lobe/Dimbo and an traditional understanding the EU had no power, ring through). Judicial Review is a limited remedy. You see, the Minister must give a reason for refusing. Reasons will include human rights analysis of the original country of origin, whether social welfare and employment could offer the parent a place in Ireland, Lobe. The Judge often finds it difficult to find that the decision flies in the face of common sense and he is bound by Lobe.

Its clear from the amount of judicial review cases in the High court in relation to asylum, that some lawyers don't seem to grasp what judicial review is either. But please, by all means instead of scampering off all self satisfied how about coming back here and inlightening us on what you believe Judical review is. For those in IReland right now and still waiting on a leave to remain decision, Zambrano will certaintly apply.

"My point from the above is, did Judge Cooke decide to adjourn the case saying some Irish case or cases will go to the Ecj for clarification because of the fact that he personally made the judgment on some similar cases which was negative to the applicants which led to their deportations and now that the Ecj ruling as of 8 March 2011 was made, does that mean his previous Judgment regarding such cases is now invalid and he's trying to protect that?"


Possibly. One specific question that I understand Cooke is asking is whether the decisions that he has given before the Zambrano Judgment and the implementation of Lisbon Treaty are affected by Zambrano. Will Zambrano have retrospective affect. Could those whose deportation order were confirmed in say 2009, be allowed to come back to Ireland.

You
"There was an obligation from Judge Cooke to the department to take formal position on the ruling what does that mean?"

Me
That actually sounds odd, as if he is predetermining and/or dictating to the government on what to do, ironic considering Judicial Review is not suppose to do that. I understand he wishes to hear the submissions of the State as he has over 100 cases before him. He clearly wants to set up a list of questions for the ECJ which he wants clarification. We won't really know what he is at until the next few weeks. However strange it is, the ECJ has not answered those questions, so its valid to raise them with the ECJ. All it is is a preliminary reference case. You hardly wish to interrupt democracy in action do you? Anyway, it would be better that the decision comes from ECJ than the Minister making a heams and costing more money in inevitable legal challenges and delay.

You
"If it was to be the case where he said deportation evaders,serious criminals e.t.c then that would have been an issue of fair/relevant clarification needed! precise you can't call every asylum seeker a cheat or whatever harsh name you use because some are genuine tho majority are fakes but why using the bad ones to define the good ones? It's not new to me there is just this hatred for asylum seekers from Africa especially Nigeria."

me
First of all, let me make it clear. I do not think that Nigerians or other Africans are cheats. Second, I do not suggest that all asylum seekers are cheats. What I do suggest or what i will point the fact clearly, is that there was no need for Nigerians (AFTER 2000 - I accept 1994 to 1999 things were really bad) to seek asylum. If they wanted to come here they could have applied for work permits. Knowing full well that they would not get work permits, they made up stories of juju magic, shrines and cults. These were, if you read the British and Canadian transcripts (which are actuall open to all to read) this was a very common story. Seem a majority are of royal blood eh. That is one thing as they will be refused.

THe real problem (they can be any nationality not just Nigerian, so don't you dare avoid the truth and misdirect what is being discussed) was that when they came they heavily pregnant (knowingly full well what the law was at the time) gave birth no later than 2 weeks on arrival and once this occurred, all of a sudden dropped their asylum cases and not even bothered to attend their interviews. They were allowed into the country, even if they did not have passports or visas in order to give birth. Had they not said they came for asylum they would have been refused entry. They really came for an alternative motive. This is cheating end of story and its got nothing to do with nationalities or colour. THe soon you get that into your brain the better. Absolutely no defence can be given here (even if authorities told these people that they could drop their asylum)

Why should a hard working but childless non eu work permit holder, who 1 year short of getting permanent residency or being eligible for citizenship (so legal for 4 years), risk loosing his residency if made redundant and unable to get another work permit for a new job; yet a non eu person could come here apply for asylum (i have no qualms with this, they have a right) and it turns out frivlous and within 6 months form a family and get the partner knocked up and now be able to rely on Zambrano? Is this fair?, after all, wasn't the asylum seekers main purpose to seek protection and not start a family. If anyone says i am ****stirring, i directly them to the countless court transcripts for facts of cases on bailii.org and courts.ie

you
"I'm glad you accepted you have worked with d Department interesting but one thing my grandma used to say to me is,Chameleon changes its color only when on disguise....so if you are really intelligent as i thought you should know the meaning of that lil parable precise you didn't work with the immigration unit while u were with d department so dont say what u dont know simply because of what you were told by your colleagues working with the immigration unit as at then."

me
What a weird comment to make. Of course i "accepted", I did work there i can not deny that and i made that clear along time ago so that open discussion could be had. You alot never seem to want to disclose your interests so that then we can see whether there is a truthful interpretation of the law or an interpretation of the law to suit them. This is important were your accusations included someone's incorrect or "twisted" understanding of something. Its dishonest.

you
"I'm glad you accepted you have worked with d Department interesting but one thing my grandma used to say to me is,Chameleon changes its color only when on disguise....so if you are really intelligent as i thought you should know the meaning of that lil parable precise you didn't work with the immigration unit while u were with d department so dont say what u dont know simply because of what you were told by your colleagues working with the immigration unit as at then."

me
You are an idiot. Chameleon? Really? Nothing that I said is untrue, dishonest or inaccurate. Various branches in the Department have to work side by side and mingle with eachother. The staff in the various branches in the department were very amused in the 1990's with some of the stories concocked by the asylum seekers. They had access to work themselves. Chameleon suggests dishonesty. I actually have been very up front with my background, and it has been accepted by others that I have told you what the position in the department is and was, whether they agreed or disagreed with the policy is another thing.

As for your opinion on relevant statment. That is arrogant, idiotic, self serving and extremely misplaced. I accept that its irrelevant in the sense that it won't stop these people getting status. But it is not the logical decision you claim it to be. It wrecks of disrespect for democracy, a movement to supernational states and more importantly, has the potential to unwittingly cause inequality to people who have genuine rights to be a European as opposed to the non eu bogus / articifical rights. Considering you are all experts on discrimination and or reverse discrimination, if you are unable to understand why other classes of immigrant/eu citizen is being used as a case study or comparrision of rights, then maybe you should refrain from using such big words. You either don't understand what you are really talking about, or if you do are dishonest and like to distort the matter in your own favour. Yes you raised the valid point of Romanians in 2014 but you also failed to look at the problems now facing other EU citizens who may get refused family reunification if they don't comply with the Directive. READ THE ARTICLE FROM MAASTRICT UNIVERSITY AGAIN. you don't seem to be getting the picture or you are refusing to do so. More importantly, take your self interests out of the ring for 5 minutes and look at both sides. If you can't or won't then F8ck off and do not reply.

you:
"This is what you are doing

For example on this same topic i started talking about a black teenager that was killed a year ago in Ireland by some Irish teenagers and il say if it was to be the other way round,there would have been murder,strict monitoring on every black person e.t.c.........this wouldn't make any sense and i would really feel so stupid to have posted something like that on this topic but thats what you are doing you are saying things that doesn't match with the topic making your post so irrelevant and trying to cover it up this is what you always say.....youse can't just go on for a debate without taking offense, youse just don't want to accept the truth, lol what truth?

From a wise observation, are you saying you are also an opponent to "Reverse Discrimination must end" ? yes i think you are cos if you have a problem with non nationals with Irish Children benefiting more than the Romanians/Bulgarians then what about an Irish Citizen having an Irish Citizen child with a non national? oh i know what you want to say,that's his/her business for having a baby or marrying a non national isn't that what you want to say?or you still gonna be angry that since there is a non national involved,the Romanians and Bulgarians's requirement should stop so that the Irish citizen with his/her family made up of non national(s) wouldn't benefit more than Romanian and Bulgarian? or at the other hand are you gonna say,in the case where one of the parent is Irish is not included in your so called debate about the Romanians/Bulgarians benefiting less than Non nationals? because saying that as well means you are creating what we call first class irish children /second class irish children i.e Irish Children of Non national parents compared to Irish children of Irish parent(s) which is completely wrong?"

me:
Sorry Sorry sorry, what the f*ck are you talking about. What has the death of a black immigrant got to do with this? . This is immigration , in fact zambrano. And i am being acused of changing the subject. Maybe when you learn to read Most of my posts are in response to irrelevant bollIx like yours. No wonder we lot have a hard time of it. Yer self imagined self imposed kick me signs must be wearing yer backs down and giving ye serious chips on the shoulder. This topic has nothing to do with some loud mouth youth who got killed by two jealous scumbags. There was no dispute as to who was and who was allowed to live in Ireland. If you had raised that you would rightly have been ridiclude. (I would suggest that we wait for the court case before prejudging the motives in that case)

What I am discussion is releated to ones right to reside in the land mass of the EU. Its not nothing to do with skin colour or race you moron. You completely distort the discussion. the point being EU citizens should have the same rights and conditions. This case potentially does not do that.

With regard to reverse discrimination, I am an opponent of EU interference as they have no right to interfere where EU law does not arise. This was an artifical attempt by ECJ to interfere. I would rather see reform coming from the domestic legislator and in certain classes, I have no qualms with reverese discrimination. Considering Ireland was adversely against metock, I see no problem with refusal of residence of a couple who had been together on a short term basis and get married only after a deportation order is issued. I have no problems with the removal of fathers of citizen children IF it turns out that he failed to be with the family at time of birth of citizen child and was out of the child's life for first 1-3 years, failed to send money over to child, if the mother had legal status (therefore child's rights to live here are sorted) and if the country of return is safe. I support Loebe as considered again in Dimbo (I assume you read Dimbo). If there is going to be change, it should come from dáil Éireann and not Europe when it does not involve EU law or freemovement and not this artificial case that becomes a paradox to what eu law is suppose to provide. Just because Irish law which traditonally is entitled to do what it does, seems unfair compared to rights enjoyed by other eu citizens in Ireland via EU law, does not justify an interference into an area the ECJ did not intend to have competence. All this does now is cause more inconsistencies. I purpose that the Treaty and Directives etc now are amended in order to specify these new theories and rights so that each member state will have a say as to whether they want it or not (quite possible ireland via referendum would support it, and it might not)

To suggest its irrelevant is extremely ignorant of the law and the matrix of the EU and you should not make "expert" comment if you don't appreciate it. Again ,if you looked at it from someone who has no agendas or self interest, you could see where I am coming from


Now to appeal to your intelligence, the Romanian and Bulgarian cases were one example of inequality. I have also raised the far more serious problem of you lot and those EU citizens including Irish (eg who want to bring mother in law etc) who fail in their family reunification because they fail to comply with Directive 2004/38 EC. You never made any comment on that.

[Morrisj]

Still irrelevant i mean irrelevo irrelevivoooooooooo

Precise now i know u just dnt twist things up urself its already in ur blood,ur addicted. Now u r trying to cover your mess switching back to the main Zambrano case n talking less of the Romanians and Bulgarians,nice try

Yes am a moron,idiot whatelse did u call me? and should i check that on the dictionary too Mr lecturer lol?

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-27.html

Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved.

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-28.html

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

[walrusgumble]

Still irrelevant i mean irrelevo irrelevivoooooooooo

Precise now i know u just dnt twist things up urself its already in ur blood,ur addicted. Now u r trying to cover your mess switching back to the main Zambrano case n talking less of the Romanians and Bulgarians,nice try

Yes am a moron,idiot whatelse did u call me? and should i check that on the dictionary too Mr lecturer lol?

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-27.html

Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved.

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-28.html

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

You don't even realise the implications of the case at all, so you are not capable of determining what is "irrelevant" or not. Yes, what I say does not change the implications of the case, but there will be many more cases to follow this, and if the members states had backbone would seek to amend the treaty and or directives to either curtail this potential loophole or at least state clearly what "citizenship entitles you to". We will see then, as per democracy what the member states really intended.


Yes, it is certaintly confirmed, you are an idiot. I am simply responding point by point to everything that any one states. If there is a statment made by you or others that does not deal with Romanian / Bulgaria then whats the point of raising it again if your particular statement makes no reference? You want me to repeat my self in every statement? How a comment by me reminding you of your incorrect interpretation of irish work permits got to do with romanians or bulgarians at that juncture? Or the death of a Nigerian boy by two scumbag Irish people? Is there really a need to constantly refer to that case study when I have clearly stated what I want to state. Even I accept that the 2014 embargo (as someone suggested) is due, but I quickly replied that there is no guarantee. I thought the debate matured to a point where what anyone had to say about these people had expired, without a concession from both parts.

I am not trying to cover or back track. If you read and are capable to computing a number of train of thoughts in one go you would realise this. I gave a number of cases scenerios that seem to be treated less favourably than the baby boom visitors. 1. Childless Bulgarians/Romanians who wish to come here now and 2. Other childless member state citizens who have to go through the requirements of Directive 2004/38 EC. This was actually looked at by the author of the Maastrict University paper. There has been absolutely no back tracking. I clearly stated "as of this time". You hang on to Romania / Bulgaria (no certainty that the 2014 embargo will be lifted) yet to fail to make any comment on the other case study. Simply, because you have no defence. But what would no expect, the "kick me i am foreign sign is on".

Moron, idiot and liar. These are completely appropriate. If you are going to make comments, at least get your facts right and back up what you say. I might not have responded nicely but at least the facts are accurate. Your open to ridicule with what you have said. There is plenty of information out their so I don't expect that a seemingly intelligent person has any excuse for the rubbish that you spouted. You could not even get your facts correct about work permits and you and another poster came out sounding like a very bad bond villian. How can anyone take you seriously never mind accept to consider whether what you think is relevant or irrelevant. You have self interest in this case as it might help you or friends. Your are not in a position or willing to be in a position to acknowledge the genuine concerns members states has. My point of raising these case studies is not to criticise the immigrant but to criticise the "learned judges" of the ECJ and Advocate General who have unwittingly created a bit of a problem. ie if you can't comply with the Directive 2004/38 ec or get refugee status, sod it get pregnant with Europeaner on a one night stand (with respect, many immigrants have more respect for themselves than that) .

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a Romanian or Bulgarian (and accepted as such by the people on the boards) who wanted to come to Ireland but could not afford to be self employed and was expected to get a work permit (which they will not get even if employer said yes) I would be pretty peed off, I am a european the parents are not, I have more right and link to europe , the minor citizen child had not (ie before born as parents were not permitted to enter Ireland to give birth, but to apply for asylum). You would have no defence or now right to criticise that poster or say, ah its irrelevant or ah don't be dearly beloved

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a French/German etc (and it was accepted as such by the people on the boards) came to Ireland 2 years ago and lost his job one year ago possibly through his own fault (there is a provision in the directive that saves people if made redundant through no fault of their own), now meet an illegal non eu immigrant and married two weeks ago, they would, as of right now, be unsuccessful in getting the EU 1 form application as he fails to comply with Directive 2004/38 EC. Where is the Treaty for them? (no doubt the ecj will try to solve that issue) After all the ECJ has this notion that all EU people should be treated the same. You would reject Edwards J recent judgment in Monahan (case involving an Irish man and naturalised Irish chinese women who wanted to bring the women's chinese mother to Ireland) that different situations mean different outcomes (his way of denying reverse discrimination). You would have no right to criticise them if they came across as annoyed or raised a hypocritical point of view against the ECJ and how it treated the parents of an minor citizen child who had a limited purpose of entering the state in the first place. The German etc would also have been peed off that Zambrano goes far further than Chen (which accepted the limited notion that the parent should be allowed to stay anywhere in Europe to raise the child) in that the parent now no longer needs to be self sufficient in order to get a chance to raise the child in Europe / the child to stay in union of his/her birth.

Was it you that raised an issue of self interest? Really? And no one joined the EU in order to further their self interests? It would be worth looking at the work of the Irish Army under the UN Peace keeping missions, Irish humanitiarian and charity work (Goal and concern) and Irish consistent raising of very large amounts of money for less well off areas in the world before spouting this off. The problem with Zambrano, again, is the issue that the ECJ went beyond their competence and remits of the Treaty. The Treaty and Directives never specified or intended such an interpretation. The people of Europe were never asked. This is suppose to be a democracy. Its possible the people might then fully support this judgment. maybe that word democracy is not a word you are use too since you consider my argument to be irrelevant.


"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Re politics.ie . The people? what two to three people, who are clearly immigrants who have a self interest in the matter and an onerous interpretation of what eu law USE TO SAY before Zambrano. They have yet to respond to the artilces that proves that they are wrong (assuming they can read english and words "extend" and "new"). They have yet to respond but it does not mean that they are correct. Why don't you read the entire 28 -29 pages to see the people actually say. In main part of the discussion at politics.ie is that one person says that the Treaty always allowed for Zambrano and I say it does not. Thats the main argument and not its implications as there is no disagreement. Boy you can't even try and get a grasp of whats being discussed.

Or maybe refer to boards.ie where there is a similar discussion in the EU part of the politics section, some very harsh things are being said there.

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

It will probably take a month or two to open up all files to see what kind of cases are involved and then bring before the Judge. I would imagine Cooke would be anxious to deal with this quickly in order to avoid any damages claims applications from deported parents and if they the state are wrong, get them back to ireland quickly.

[Morrisj]

Still irrelevant i mean irrelevo irrelevivoooooooooo

Precise now i know u just dnt twist things up urself its already in ur blood,ur addicted. Now u r trying to cover your mess switching back to the main Zambrano case n talking less of the Romanians and Bulgarians,nice try

Yes am a moron,idiot whatelse did u call me? and should i check that on the dictionary too Mr lecturer lol?

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-27.html

Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved.

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-28.html

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

You don't even realise the implications of the case at all, so you are not capable of determining what is "irrelevant" or not. Yes, what I say does not change the implications of the case, but there will be many more cases to follow this, and if the members states had backbone would seek to amend the treaty and or directives to either curtail this potential loophole or at least state clearly what "citizenship entitles you to". We will see then, as per democracy what the member states really intended.


Yes, it is certaintly confirmed, you are an idiot. I am simply responding point by point to everything that any one states. If there is a statment made by you or others that does not deal with Romanian / Bulgaria then whats the point of raising it again if your particular statement makes no reference? You want me to repeat my self in every statement? How a comment by me reminding you of your incorrect interpretation of irish work permits got to do with romanians or bulgarians at that juncture? Or the death of a Nigerian boy by two scumbag Irish people? Is there really a need to constantly refer to that case study when I have clearly stated what I want to state. Even I accept that the 2014 embargo (as someone suggested) is due, but I quickly replied that there is no guarantee. I thought the debate matured to a point where what anyone had to say about these people had expired, without a concession from both parts.

I am not trying to cover or back track. If you read and are capable to computing a number of train of thoughts in one go you would realise this. I gave a number of cases scenerios that seem to be treated less favourably than the baby boom visitors. 1. Childless Bulgarians/Romanians who wish to come here now and 2. Other childless member state citizens who have to go through the requirements of Directive 2004/38 EC. This was actually looked at by the author of the Maastrict University paper. There has been absolutely no back tracking. I clearly stated "as of this time". You hang on to Romania / Bulgaria (no certainty that the 2014 embargo will be lifted) yet to fail to make any comment on the other case study. Simply, because you have no defence. But what would no expect, the "kick me i am foreign sign is on".

Moron, idiot and liar. These are completely appropriate. If you are going to make comments, at least get your facts right and back up what you say. I might not have responded nicely but at least the facts are accurate. Your open to ridicule with what you have said. There is plenty of information out their so I don't expect that a seemingly intelligent person has any excuse for the rubbish that you spouted. You could not even get your facts correct about work permits and you and another poster came out sounding like a very bad bond villian. How can anyone take you seriously never mind accept to consider whether what you think is relevant or irrelevant. You have self interest in this case as it might help you or friends. Your are not in a position or willing to be in a position to acknowledge the genuine concerns members states has. My point of raising these case studies is not to criticise the immigrant but to criticise the "learned judges" of the ECJ and Advocate General who have unwittingly created a bit of a problem. ie if you can't comply with the Directive 2004/38 ec or get refugee status, sod it get pregnant with Europeaner on a one night stand (with respect, many immigrants have more respect for themselves than that) .

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a Romanian or Bulgarian (and accepted as such by the people on the boards) who wanted to come to Ireland but could not afford to be self employed and was expected to get a work permit (which they will not get even if employer said yes) I would be pretty peed off, I am a european the parents are not, I have more right and link to europe , the minor citizen child had not (ie before born as parents were not permitted to enter Ireland to give birth, but to apply for asylum). You would have no defence or now right to criticise that poster or say, ah its irrelevant or ah don't be dearly beloved

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a French/German etc (and it was accepted as such by the people on the boards) came to Ireland 2 years ago and lost his job one year ago possibly through his own fault (there is a provision in the directive that saves people if made redundant through no fault of their own), now meet an illegal non eu immigrant and married two weeks ago, they would, as of right now, be unsuccessful in getting the EU 1 form application as he fails to comply with Directive 2004/38 EC. Where is the Treaty for them? (no doubt the ecj will try to solve that issue) After all the ECJ has this notion that all EU people should be treated the same. You would reject Edwards J recent judgment in Monahan (case involving an Irish man and naturalised Irish chinese women who wanted to bring the women's chinese mother to Ireland) that different situations mean different outcomes (his way of denying reverse discrimination). You would have no right to criticise them if they came across as annoyed or raised a hypocritical point of view against the ECJ and how it treated the parents of an minor citizen child who had a limited purpose of entering the state in the first place. The German etc would also have been peed off that Zambrano goes far further than Chen (which accepted the limited notion that the parent should be allowed to stay anywhere in Europe to raise the child) in that the parent now no longer needs to be self sufficient in order to get a chance to raise the child in Europe / the child to stay in union of his/her birth.

Was it you that raised an issue of self interest? Really? And no one joined the EU in order to further their self interests? It would be worth looking at the work of the Irish Army under the UN Peace keeping missions, Irish humanitiarian and charity work (Goal and concern) and Irish consistent raising of very large amounts of money for less well off areas in the world before spouting this off. The problem with Zambrano, again, is the issue that the ECJ went beyond their competence and remits of the Treaty. The Treaty and Directives never specified or intended such an interpretation. The people of Europe were never asked. This is suppose to be a democracy. Its possible the people might then fully support this judgment. maybe that word democracy is not a word you are use too since you consider my argument to be irrelevant.


"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Re politics.ie . The people? what two to three people, who are clearly immigrants who have a self interest in the matter and an onerous interpretation of what eu law USE TO SAY before Zambrano. They have yet to respond to the artilces that proves that they are wrong (assuming they can read english and words "extend" and "new"). They have yet to respond but it does not mean that they are correct. Why don't you read the entire 28 -29 pages to see the people actually say. In main part of the discussion at politics.ie is that one person says that the Treaty always allowed for Zambrano and I say it does not. Thats the main argument and not its implications as there is no disagreement. Boy you can't even try and get a grasp of whats being discussed.

Or maybe refer to boards.ie where there is a similar discussion in the EU part of the politics section, some very harsh things are being said there.

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

It will probably take a month or two to open up all files to see what kind of cases are involved and then bring before the Judge. I would imagine Cooke would be anxious to deal with this quickly in order to avoid any damages claims applications from deported parents and if they the state are wrong, get them back to ireland quickly.

You are not an opponent to reverse discrimination but an opponent to Eu interference lol you are confusing yourself man not me,cant u see u r confusing yourself, Eu interference,an interference that brought to atleast eliminating reverse discrimination,if u r an opponent to the EU interference means u r an opponent 2 Reverse Discrimination as well.

Will u stop fooling yourself dnt tell me at this stage u still dnt know u saying shit and dnt forget my objection to your post was only done when you started the Romanian n Bulgarian so what u crying like a baby for writing all those messages as if you are a Journalist.

Precise u said u were working with the Doj does that mean u r not currently employed cos if thats the case then il understand why u dnt care if Ireland is in the breach of Eu Law again anyways with your answer to my question in the previous post and just to show how wrong u r check the link below

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 21626.html

[AShawna]

Can someone explain more to me about this Zambrano case to me. Is it going to be in effect in Ireland now? Has INIS made any comment about it

Its being looked into now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 76603.html

[AShawna]

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 76603.html

[macam bird]

Right,

I just cannot hold in in any longer! I am sick to death of coming on here for information and having to trawl through Walrusgrumbles dearly beloved ramblings ( I am a british citizen, married to a non-eu national, so on occasion I need info). How much longer are us IMMIGRANTS( yes walrus G, this is a site for immigrants incase you have not noticed) going to have to put up with this guy??? At least IRISH TOM( very sad guy) is blatant in his beloved and only rears his ugly head now and then l@l. But Walsgrumble now is taking up pages and pages of forum space with his dribble I am so sick of it now. I never comment on here, but I am always checking this site for info, but I cannot put up with walrusgrumble any more, I have also noticed his dearly beloved ramblings on boards.ie/politics.ie. Can we please have a voting poll to get him banned . And too you walrusgrumble, please get a life mt8....

[ImmigrationLawyer]

I agree. This is a forum designed for immigrants sharing their experiences and helping eachother with information and advice. We shouldn't put up with dearly beloved comments. If Irish people want to comment about Irish governmental policy then please go on to another site for that.

[fatty patty]

hi guys, in fairness to walrus I did not find any of his posts "dearly beloved"...walrus posts do contain a lot of text and looses plot sometimes (ok alot of times ) and gets lost in translation and also don't accept the notion and argue/reason even when clear facts are given. I know as i have clashed with walrus alot of times, and its resilience. 100% agree this is an immigrant forum to discuss immigration issues but the good thing about this is that you get all kinds of responses from people from all walks of life/nationality, non-EU, EU, american, oz, brits, irish so all responses are welcome as long as they don't go into personal attack mode plus also the mods do decent job monitoring.

[Obie]

I don't believe, based on his post alone, that walrusgumble is a dearly beloved or lovey. i don't agree with his views, i get very irritated by them at times, and obviously i would love for him to hold views which are held by mainstream forum members. However, we have to respect and accomodate views which are not in line with ours. We should engage those views, and not simply dismiss them, in worst case scenerio, just ignore them.

His contribution can sometimes be quite informative and educating, despite his constant ranting, which result in some of his intellectual views being lost in transcription.

In my opinion he is not a course for concern, unlike some past members who clearly came to the forum to insult and offend. Thankfully there is some peace in the air as their presence has diminished.

[acme4242]

I would not go as far to say dearly beloved either, But a lot of the recent long
rambling posts show signs of some disturbance.

Generally, its good to have critical intelligent posts, and corrections
are always welcome.

[starbuck]

i believe that if the judgement goes through in favour of the minor people then the parents who have been deported would come back and reside in ireland and then they can WORK. what about the case of parents who have irish kids and the husband or wife is on spousal visa and cannot work ? would they also be eligible to work ?

I believe that its quite a litigation at the end ? any comments ?

*$

[Morrisj]

No comment cos what you are talking about mate doesnt make sense or should i say its not relevant as the judgement was delivered on the 8th of March and there have been further approaches by some of the member states government i.e implementing the ruling so what you on about?

Please always take your time to read the previous comments on the post precise whatever information you r looking for has been discussed on this topic.

and yes the spouse can work infact they have upper hand as they are legally in the country. all he/she need 2 do is 2 regulate his/her residency stamp or whatever to the residency stamp that doesn't require a work permit stating the zambrano case simple

[walrusgumble]

Still irrelevant i mean irrelevo irrelevivoooooooooo

Precise now i know u just dnt twist things up urself its already in ur blood,ur addicted. Now u r trying to cover your mess switching back to the main Zambrano case n talking less of the Romanians and Bulgarians,nice try

Yes am a moron,idiot whatelse did u call me? and should i check that on the dictionary too Mr lecturer lol?

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-27.html

Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved.

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-28.html

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

You don't even realise the implications of the case at all, so you are not capable of determining what is "irrelevant" or not. Yes, what I say does not change the implications of the case, but there will be many more cases to follow this, and if the members states had backbone would seek to amend the treaty and or directives to either curtail this potential loophole or at least state clearly what "citizenship entitles you to". We will see then, as per democracy what the member states really intended.


Yes, it is certaintly confirmed, you are an idiot. I am simply responding point by point to everything that any one states. If there is a statment made by you or others that does not deal with Romanian / Bulgaria then whats the point of raising it again if your particular statement makes no reference? You want me to repeat my self in every statement? How a comment by me reminding you of your incorrect interpretation of irish work permits got to do with romanians or bulgarians at that juncture? Or the death of a Nigerian boy by two scumbag Irish people? Is there really a need to constantly refer to that case study when I have clearly stated what I want to state. Even I accept that the 2014 embargo (as someone suggested) is due, but I quickly replied that there is no guarantee. I thought the debate matured to a point where what anyone had to say about these people had expired, without a concession from both parts.

I am not trying to cover or back track. If you read and are capable to computing a number of train of thoughts in one go you would realise this. I gave a number of cases scenerios that seem to be treated less favourably than the baby boom visitors. 1. Childless Bulgarians/Romanians who wish to come here now and 2. Other childless member state citizens who have to go through the requirements of Directive 2004/38 EC. This was actually looked at by the author of the Maastrict University paper. There has been absolutely no back tracking. I clearly stated "as of this time". You hang on to Romania / Bulgaria (no certainty that the 2014 embargo will be lifted) yet to fail to make any comment on the other case study. Simply, because you have no defence. But what would no expect, the "kick me i am foreign sign is on".

Moron, idiot and liar. These are completely appropriate. If you are going to make comments, at least get your facts right and back up what you say. I might not have responded nicely but at least the facts are accurate. Your open to ridicule with what you have said. There is plenty of information out their so I don't expect that a seemingly intelligent person has any excuse for the rubbish that you spouted. You could not even get your facts correct about work permits and you and another poster came out sounding like a very bad bond villian. How can anyone take you seriously never mind accept to consider whether what you think is relevant or irrelevant. You have self interest in this case as it might help you or friends. Your are not in a position or willing to be in a position to acknowledge the genuine concerns members states has. My point of raising these case studies is not to criticise the immigrant but to criticise the "learned judges" of the ECJ and Advocate General who have unwittingly created a bit of a problem. ie if you can't comply with the Directive 2004/38 ec or get refugee status, sod it get pregnant with Europeaner on a one night stand (with respect, many immigrants have more respect for themselves than that) .

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a Romanian or Bulgarian (and accepted as such by the people on the boards) who wanted to come to Ireland but could not afford to be self employed and was expected to get a work permit (which they will not get even if employer said yes) I would be pretty peed off, I am a european the parents are not, I have more right and link to europe , the minor citizen child had not (ie before born as parents were not permitted to enter Ireland to give birth, but to apply for asylum). You would have no defence or now right to criticise that poster or say, ah its irrelevant or ah don't be dearly beloved

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a French/German etc (and it was accepted as such by the people on the boards) came to Ireland 2 years ago and lost his job one year ago possibly through his own fault (there is a provision in the directive that saves people if made redundant through no fault of their own), now meet an illegal non eu immigrant and married two weeks ago, they would, as of right now, be unsuccessful in getting the EU 1 form application as he fails to comply with Directive 2004/38 EC. Where is the Treaty for them? (no doubt the ecj will try to solve that issue) After all the ECJ has this notion that all EU people should be treated the same. You would reject Edwards J recent judgment in Monahan (case involving an Irish man and naturalised Irish chinese women who wanted to bring the women's chinese mother to Ireland) that different situations mean different outcomes (his way of denying reverse discrimination). You would have no right to criticise them if they came across as annoyed or raised a hypocritical point of view against the ECJ and how it treated the parents of an minor citizen child who had a limited purpose of entering the state in the first place. The German etc would also have been peed off that Zambrano goes far further than Chen (which accepted the limited notion that the parent should be allowed to stay anywhere in Europe to raise the child) in that the parent now no longer needs to be self sufficient in order to get a chance to raise the child in Europe / the child to stay in union of his/her birth.

Was it you that raised an issue of self interest? Really? And no one joined the EU in order to further their self interests? It would be worth looking at the work of the Irish Army under the UN Peace keeping missions, Irish humanitiarian and charity work (Goal and concern) and Irish consistent raising of very large amounts of money for less well off areas in the world before spouting this off. The problem with Zambrano, again, is the issue that the ECJ went beyond their competence and remits of the Treaty. The Treaty and Directives never specified or intended such an interpretation. The people of Europe were never asked. This is suppose to be a democracy. Its possible the people might then fully support this judgment. maybe that word democracy is not a word you are use too since you consider my argument to be irrelevant.


"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Re politics.ie . The people? what two to three people, who are clearly immigrants who have a self interest in the matter and an onerous interpretation of what eu law USE TO SAY before Zambrano. They have yet to respond to the artilces that proves that they are wrong (assuming they can read english and words "extend" and "new"). They have yet to respond but it does not mean that they are correct. Why don't you read the entire 28 -29 pages to see the people actually say. In main part of the discussion at politics.ie is that one person says that the Treaty always allowed for Zambrano and I say it does not. Thats the main argument and not its implications as there is no disagreement. Boy you can't even try and get a grasp of whats being discussed.

Or maybe refer to boards.ie where there is a similar discussion in the EU part of the politics section, some very harsh things are being said there.

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

It will probably take a month or two to open up all files to see what kind of cases are involved and then bring before the Judge. I would imagine Cooke would be anxious to deal with this quickly in order to avoid any damages claims applications from deported parents and if they the state are wrong, get them back to ireland quickly.

You are not an opponent to reverse discrimination but an opponent to Eu interference lol you are confusing yourself man not me,cant u see u r confusing yourself, Eu interference,an interference that brought to atleast eliminating reverse discrimination,if u r an opponent to the EU interference means u r an opponent 2 Reverse Discrimination as well.

Will u stop fooling yourself dnt tell me at this stage u still dnt know u saying shit and dnt forget my objection to your post was only done when you started the Romanian n Bulgarian so what u crying like a baby for writing all those messages as if you are a Journalist.

Precise u said u were working with the Doj does that mean u r not currently employed cos if thats the case then il understand why u dnt care if Ireland is in the breach of Eu Law again anyways with your answer to my question in the previous post and just to show how wrong u r check the link below

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 21626.html

Stop embarrasing your self. If you are unable to tell the difference between reform being invoked in your domestic legislature and reform coming the EU when the EU does not have the power to do so; or to put it more clearly, ultra vires; then its not my problem. I am not confused. I never suggested that I have made it very clear that I have no problem with the reverse discrimination in the Irish children case because I believe that they should neve have got citizenship in the first place. I have made my self clear. So have the people of Ireland. The point of raising the case examples is to pin point the problems that the ECJ have unwittingly caused and to point out all of your clear hyprocrisy. You boast of wanting to see Ireland do X , Y and Z yet you refuse to listen and rather shout down on people who raise inconvenient truths.

I have heard that you have said its irrelevant. Why don't you point out why YOU think its irrelevant as oppose to coming off as a smug sheep who clearly has proven an inability to think for themselves and simply hang on to other people's views.

There is no twisting at all. Merely showing that the ECJ are full of shit with their ideas of EU. Cave in to non eu's with a notion that it helps eu's yet treat other eu's (who have an entitlement as of birth and family roots in Europe) differently

"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Again, those 3-4 people (out of 60-70) are in the same boat as you. Just because they oppose what I said does not mean that they are correct. Their interpretation is flawed and had they actually lived in Europe all this time and being involved in regular legal interpretation of the Treaties, they would realise that they are talking through their arses to suggest that Maasstrict as of 2000 suggested a right to live under eu law without moving. I would not get so smug, as "dependent" as not been defined by the ECJ in these cases, and this will defintely affect most of the Irish cases.

The dearly beloved card. Oh, for the trusty excuse. You really are a tosser. You and your people will never be taken seriously in this country with that attitude. Dissent and your a dearly beloved?. Its about damn time you disclose where your from. I can bet my home that your country is far far worse in its treatment of its people and others. Very brave to make false allegations on an annoymonus website. Defamation laws will be developing soon on internet. I would watch what you say if I were you. If you are unable to tell the difference between a lovey and a person who demands to see proper procedures in place, as explained at politics.ie i would suggest that you refrain from calling people dearly beloved as you clearly don't know what it means. And even if I was a dearly beloved, so what? There is nothing in the judgment or this debate that would endear anyone. If you feel so strongly about the people then leave. There is natually going to be hostility towards this decision as we are back to square one. We have no problem with people of different countries, We have problems with frauds.


"Precise u said u were working with the Doj does that mean u r not currently employed cos if thats the case then il understand why u dnt care if Ireland is in the breach of Eu Law again anyways with your answer to my question in the previous post and just to show how wrong u r check the link below"

As I have disclosed many times already on this website, I have worked at the department of justice. Thankfully, I was born with a brain and incentive and got the hell out of state employment and moved into self employment. Things are tough, but I am still moving along nicely. Where did you see any comment by me to suggest that I was unemployed or unable to get work elsewhere?


This is the more interesting line from Shatter that I would be concerned with. They believe that taking legimate and probably successful challenges to Zambrano would not be of use in the short term - after all, politicans have enough on their plate. Typical though, they won't be in power when we are dealing with problems in the future.

"ensure that the taxpayer is not exposed to any unnecessary additional legal costs"

[ImmigrationLawyer]

Starbuck - you can lodge an application for change of status to the unrestricted "Stamp 4" status. The irony is, this probably would have been accepted without much fuss by INIS before Zambrano - now with the influx of letters and applications they are receiving there may be delays. But you should be entitled to work without a work permit and you should be granted a Stamp 4 to allow you to do this, IMO.

[Morrisj]

Still irrelevant i mean irrelevo irrelevivoooooooooo

Precise now i know u just dnt twist things up urself its already in ur blood,ur addicted. Now u r trying to cover your mess switching back to the main Zambrano case n talking less of the Romanians and Bulgarians,nice try

Yes am a moron,idiot whatelse did u call me? and should i check that on the dictionary too Mr lecturer lol?

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-27.html

Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved.

http://www.politics.ie/justice/155271-z ... nd-28.html

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

You don't even realise the implications of the case at all, so you are not capable of determining what is "irrelevant" or not. Yes, what I say does not change the implications of the case, but there will be many more cases to follow this, and if the members states had backbone would seek to amend the treaty and or directives to either curtail this potential loophole or at least state clearly what "citizenship entitles you to". We will see then, as per democracy what the member states really intended.


Yes, it is certaintly confirmed, you are an idiot. I am simply responding point by point to everything that any one states. If there is a statment made by you or others that does not deal with Romanian / Bulgaria then whats the point of raising it again if your particular statement makes no reference? You want me to repeat my self in every statement? How a comment by me reminding you of your incorrect interpretation of irish work permits got to do with romanians or bulgarians at that juncture? Or the death of a Nigerian boy by two scumbag Irish people? Is there really a need to constantly refer to that case study when I have clearly stated what I want to state. Even I accept that the 2014 embargo (as someone suggested) is due, but I quickly replied that there is no guarantee. I thought the debate matured to a point where what anyone had to say about these people had expired, without a concession from both parts.

I am not trying to cover or back track. If you read and are capable to computing a number of train of thoughts in one go you would realise this. I gave a number of cases scenerios that seem to be treated less favourably than the baby boom visitors. 1. Childless Bulgarians/Romanians who wish to come here now and 2. Other childless member state citizens who have to go through the requirements of Directive 2004/38 EC. This was actually looked at by the author of the Maastrict University paper. There has been absolutely no back tracking. I clearly stated "as of this time". You hang on to Romania / Bulgaria (no certainty that the 2014 embargo will be lifted) yet to fail to make any comment on the other case study. Simply, because you have no defence. But what would no expect, the "kick me i am foreign sign is on".

Moron, idiot and liar. These are completely appropriate. If you are going to make comments, at least get your facts right and back up what you say. I might not have responded nicely but at least the facts are accurate. Your open to ridicule with what you have said. There is plenty of information out their so I don't expect that a seemingly intelligent person has any excuse for the rubbish that you spouted. You could not even get your facts correct about work permits and you and another poster came out sounding like a very bad bond villian. How can anyone take you seriously never mind accept to consider whether what you think is relevant or irrelevant. You have self interest in this case as it might help you or friends. Your are not in a position or willing to be in a position to acknowledge the genuine concerns members states has. My point of raising these case studies is not to criticise the immigrant but to criticise the "learned judges" of the ECJ and Advocate General who have unwittingly created a bit of a problem. ie if you can't comply with the Directive 2004/38 ec or get refugee status, sod it get pregnant with Europeaner on a one night stand (with respect, many immigrants have more respect for themselves than that) .

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a Romanian or Bulgarian (and accepted as such by the people on the boards) who wanted to come to Ireland but could not afford to be self employed and was expected to get a work permit (which they will not get even if employer said yes) I would be pretty peed off, I am a european the parents are not, I have more right and link to europe , the minor citizen child had not (ie before born as parents were not permitted to enter Ireland to give birth, but to apply for asylum). You would have no defence or now right to criticise that poster or say, ah its irrelevant or ah don't be dearly beloved

If someone here said what I had said, and was clearly a French/German etc (and it was accepted as such by the people on the boards) came to Ireland 2 years ago and lost his job one year ago possibly through his own fault (there is a provision in the directive that saves people if made redundant through no fault of their own), now meet an illegal non eu immigrant and married two weeks ago, they would, as of right now, be unsuccessful in getting the EU 1 form application as he fails to comply with Directive 2004/38 EC. Where is the Treaty for them? (no doubt the ecj will try to solve that issue) After all the ECJ has this notion that all EU people should be treated the same. You would reject Edwards J recent judgment in Monahan (case involving an Irish man and naturalised Irish chinese women who wanted to bring the women's chinese mother to Ireland) that different situations mean different outcomes (his way of denying reverse discrimination). You would have no right to criticise them if they came across as annoyed or raised a hypocritical point of view against the ECJ and how it treated the parents of an minor citizen child who had a limited purpose of entering the state in the first place. The German etc would also have been peed off that Zambrano goes far further than Chen (which accepted the limited notion that the parent should be allowed to stay anywhere in Europe to raise the child) in that the parent now no longer needs to be self sufficient in order to get a chance to raise the child in Europe / the child to stay in union of his/her birth.

Was it you that raised an issue of self interest? Really? And no one joined the EU in order to further their self interests? It would be worth looking at the work of the Irish Army under the UN Peace keeping missions, Irish humanitiarian and charity work (Goal and concern) and Irish consistent raising of very large amounts of money for less well off areas in the world before spouting this off. The problem with Zambrano, again, is the issue that the ECJ went beyond their competence and remits of the Treaty. The Treaty and Directives never specified or intended such an interpretation. The people of Europe were never asked. This is suppose to be a democracy. Its possible the people might then fully support this judgment. maybe that word democracy is not a word you are use too since you consider my argument to be irrelevant.


"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Re politics.ie . The people? what two to three people, who are clearly immigrants who have a self interest in the matter and an onerous interpretation of what eu law USE TO SAY before Zambrano. They have yet to respond to the artilces that proves that they are wrong (assuming they can read english and words "extend" and "new"). They have yet to respond but it does not mean that they are correct. Why don't you read the entire 28 -29 pages to see the people actually say. In main part of the discussion at politics.ie is that one person says that the Treaty always allowed for Zambrano and I say it does not. Thats the main argument and not its implications as there is no disagreement. Boy you can't even try and get a grasp of whats being discussed.

Or maybe refer to boards.ie where there is a similar discussion in the EU part of the politics section, some very harsh things are being said there.

Anyways done with that, does any one knows the date Judge Cooke postponed the case to? any comment by Alan shatter regarding the Zambrano Ruling?

It will probably take a month or two to open up all files to see what kind of cases are involved and then bring before the Judge. I would imagine Cooke would be anxious to deal with this quickly in order to avoid any damages claims applications from deported parents and if they the state are wrong, get them back to ireland quickly.

You are not an opponent to reverse discrimination but an opponent to Eu interference lol you are confusing yourself man not me,cant u see u r confusing yourself, Eu interference,an interference that brought to atleast eliminating reverse discrimination,if u r an opponent to the EU interference means u r an opponent 2 Reverse Discrimination as well.

Will u stop fooling yourself dnt tell me at this stage u still dnt know u saying shit and dnt forget my objection to your post was only done when you started the Romanian n Bulgarian so what u crying like a baby for writing all those messages as if you are a Journalist.

Precise u said u were working with the Doj does that mean u r not currently employed cos if thats the case then il understand why u dnt care if Ireland is in the breach of Eu Law again anyways with your answer to my question in the previous post and just to show how wrong u r check the link below

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 21626.html

Stop embarrasing your self. If you are unable to tell the difference between reform being invoked in your domestic legislature and reform coming the EU when the EU does not have the power to do so; or to put it more clearly, ultra vires; then its not my problem. I am not confused. I never suggested that I have made it very clear that I have no problem with the reverse discrimination in the Irish children case because I believe that they should neve have got citizenship in the first place. I have made my self clear. So have the people of Ireland. The point of raising the case examples is to pin point the problems that the ECJ have unwittingly caused and to point out all of your clear hyprocrisy. You boast of wanting to see Ireland do X , Y and Z yet you refuse to listen and rather shout down on people who raise inconvenient truths.

I have heard that you have said its irrelevant. Why don't you point out why YOU think its irrelevant as oppose to coming off as a smug sheep who clearly has proven an inability to think for themselves and simply hang on to other people's views.

There is no twisting at all. Merely showing that the ECJ are full of shit with their ideas of EU. Cave in to non eu's with a notion that it helps eu's yet treat other eu's (who have an entitlement as of birth and family roots in Europe) differently

"Sequel to the link below it's clear that the people oppossing you have same view like me tho i don't even know them. U just dnt want to admit you are saying bullshit and u r just a common dearly beloved simple.I prefer someone who boldly admit he or she is a dearly beloved than a pretender like u acting as if u r nt a dearly beloved meanwhile deep down ur heart u more dan a dearly beloved."

Again, those 3-4 people (out of 60-70) are in the same boat as you. Just because they oppose what I said does not mean that they are correct. Their interpretation is flawed and had they actually lived in Europe all this time and being involved in regular legal interpretation of the Treaties, they would realise that they are talking through their arses to suggest that Maasstrict as of 2000 suggested a right to live under eu law without moving. I would not get so smug, as "dependent" as not been defined by the ECJ in these cases, and this will defintely affect most of the Irish cases.

The dearly beloved card. Oh, for the trusty excuse. You really are a tosser. You and your people will never be taken seriously in this country with that attitude. Dissent and your a dearly beloved?. Its about damn time you disclose where your from. I can bet my home that your country is far far worse in its treatment of its people and others. Very brave to make false allegations on an annoymonus website. Defamation laws will be developing soon on internet. I would watch what you say if I were you. If you are unable to tell the difference between a lovey and a person who demands to see proper procedures in place, as explained at politics.ie i would suggest that you refrain from calling people dearly beloved as you clearly don't know what it means. And even if I was a dearly beloved, so what? There is nothing in the judgment or this debate that would endear anyone. If you feel so strongly about the people then leave. There is natually going to be hostility towards this decision as we are back to square one. We have no problem with people of different countries, We have problems with frauds.


"Precise u said u were working with the Doj does that mean u r not currently employed cos if thats the case then il understand why u dnt care if Ireland is in the breach of Eu Law again anyways with your answer to my question in the previous post and just to show how wrong u r check the link below"

As I have disclosed many times already on this website, I have worked at the department of justice. Thankfully, I was born with a brain and incentive and got the hell out of state employment and moved into self employment. Things are tough, but I am still moving along nicely. Where did you see any comment by me to suggest that I was unemployed or unable to get work elsewhere?


This is the more interesting line from Shatter that I would be concerned with. They believe that taking legimate and probably successful challenges to Zambrano would not be of use in the short term - after all, politicans have enough on their plate. Typical though, they won't be in power when we are dealing with problems in the future.

"ensure that the taxpayer is not exposed to any unnecessary additional legal costs"

lol if u think am scared of the past government's mess then u must be outta ur mind,watch what i say?u r really a s...bag if u think i am scared of anything i say what i want especially when its right.

u r still making irrelevant stuff cos to be honest i repeat my objection started when u created that Romanian and Bulgarian topic and that seems to cease cos u aint discussing it anymore so what f..uck r u still going on about moaning like a baby ohhhhh i see like u rein enforced with some of ur partial immigration colleagues to reply me last post?

Annoymonus or not am not scared and whatever i said aint allegations they were objections to u and some other dearly beloved officials in d department and i can bodly say this 2 their face if i was given d chance cos am a free man and u can also go back n tell them i told u so punk[/u]

[9jeirean]

Starbuck - you can lodge an application for change of status to the unrestricted "Stamp 4" status. The irony is, this probably would have been accepted without much fuss by INIS before Zambrano - now with the influx of letters and applications they are receiving there may be delays. But you should be entitled to work without a work permit and you should be granted a Stamp 4 to allow you to do this, IMO.

Hi,

In relation to the highlighted part of your post. I beg to differ. It would have been impossible for someone on spousal/dependent stamp 3 to convert to a stamp 4 solely on the basis of being the parent of an Irish citizen prior to Zambrano. The only people who were able to do this to the best of my knowledge did it as part of the IBC 2005 scheme, which had a Jan 2005 cut off point. I am not aware if the DOJ had started facilitating other areas that may be impacted by the Zambrano ruling a la stamp 3 holders. I think they will by and by. It would appear the priority for now is to sort out the cases that are pending before the courts. IMO, starbucks may very well write the letter, but I doubt it will be immediately dealt with. However, he/she's got nothing to lose.

My 2cents.

9jeirean

[ImmigrationLawyer]

Really, that's interesting that we would have such different experiences. Have you worked with many people over the years since 2005, in such situations? Have you seen many applications for change of status rejected? Or are you just going on anecdotal evidence?