Zambrano - Applying for a Visa from outside the State

[fatty patty]

Thanks obie on this insight but since this ruling has far reaching impact i will not be surprised and speaking hypothetically I can see Ireland/UK or even other states going down this route to restrict parents of EU citizen returning who did not fight or serve with deportation orders. This ruling will be open to abuse just like Metock is at the expense of genuines. States will look to find loophole and the loophole is that the EU citizen child is not in danger and enrolled in School and doing fine in the non-eu country imho. It will be made tough for cohabiting couples. States will also argue that the parents return to their countries on their own accord and had no problem doing so albeit scenario is different as the parents had no choice but to return since their visas expired or expiring. @ Walrus, zambrano kids are not Colombian citizen/dual nationals. But i understand that they can qualify to be one due to parentage.

[Obie]

To be frank with you, it is very difficult to see how someone who falls within the scope of Zambrano can be said to be abusing the system, through applying for a confirmation of this right. Simply refusing children who are abroad to return with their parents would be an unlawful practice. It will go against the reasoning behind Zambrano ruling. If children are refused rights to return with their parents, they might not be able to get education or benefit that their other compatriot are entitled, when they turn adult, they might not afford the cost of returning to their state due to financial reasons and lack of a job, and the right conferred upon them will simply be illusory.

The memberstates can demand evidence from parents who are claiming rights under zambrano. Evidence of cohabitation with the child/children, or evidence they contribute emotionally to the children wellbeing, or evidence that the reason for not contributing financially is due to lack of right to work and resourse, will not be unreasonable to request. If parent cannot provide sufficient evidence to established existing relationship with the claimed child, then their presence or absence will have no input, and refusal will not be deemed to be unreasonable in those circumstance.
If however they satisfy the competent authorities of the memberstate that they meet the above criteria, and there is no issue of Public Policy or public security or in case of oversea applicant, public health, then i find it difficult to see how it could be possibly inferred that rights are being abused.

I am not convinced that Metock impunged on the ability of a member state to combat fraud, it simply prevent memberstates from collectively punishing all EU CITIZENS who are genuinely married to a third country national.

My Zambrano's children do not have automatic rights to Colombian citizenship, due to their foreign birth. Their parents were oblidge to register them, in order for them to acquire Colombian Citizenship, unfortunately this was not done. Therefore they are Belgian nationals. Under Belgian law then, children who could not gain automatic citizenship by virtue of their parents refusal to undertake the administrative procedure of registration where granted Belgium citizenship. This is how the Zambrano children became Belgian national

[ImmigrationLawyer]

The rights of third country nationals, as decided in the Zambrano case, derive from the rights of the citizen child. So even if it is considered one or both of the parents were "abusing the system" it doesn't matter. The actions and motivations of the parents are irrelevent. If there were security or serious public policy considerations these may come in to be weighed, but if not then the situation is clear cut. States may look for "loopholes" but my belief is that this would be an expensive and futile excercise. These cases should have been decided in the same way under existing law, before the Treaty and Zambrano, following the best interests of the child and constitutional right to reside.
I know there are many in the DoJ (and amongst their legal advisors) that will be urging the Minister tor restrict the scope of Zambrano but he seems to be continuing to ignore them, and has re-iterated the policy he announced just after the Court of Justice's decision.

[Obie]

I fully agree with you on this Immigrationlawyer.

There are lots of Civil Servants and groups seeking to persuade the minister to limit the scope of Zambrano, but he is a man of insight and has realised that EU rights cannot be tampered with, as it will only lead to misery for his political standing and taxpayers, especially in these days of deep economic constraint for the Irish People. He is the right man for the right job, whom i believe has the vision to shape Ireland's immigration policy in a progressive and fundamental way, for the prosperity of its people , in a fair manner.

Due to the importance of the Zambrano ruling for its beneficiaries, and the "best interest of the children" policy, there is little room for lawful restrictive practice.

[Single_mum]

[quote="ImmigrationLawyer"]Has anyone been granted a visa or is anyone applying for a Visa to enter Ireland and reside here with an Irish citizen child?

I have heard of alot of parents granted stamp 4 residency on the Zambrano judgment. However i am interested in finding out about parent(s) outside of the State.

I have an irish citizen child form a non eea mother in Ireland who has been granted stamp 4 under the IBC scheme. However i reside in my home country and neva been in Ireland before. Would i be entitled under the judgment and does anyone know wat the visa Criteria be in such case.

[MSH]

This is the Danish government's official stance on Zambrano:

If one of the parents is a union-citizen the child can stay in Denmark with that parent. This way the child's right to remain on Union territory is uninfringed. Therefore there is no need for issueing work-and residence permits to the third-country parent of such a union-citizen child.

Of course, the child's right to a family life as enshrined in ECHR article 8 is *ss-raped in the process but hey..

The first refusal based on this rather alternative interpretation of Zambrano was published on the Ministry of Integration's website 3 days ago:

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/da-dk/legalinf ... dommen.htm

MSH.

[Morrisj]

If that is truly d stance of d Danish Authorities on zambrano,that means their level of foolishness is very high.So does that mean if both parents are non eu they can stay with the child in territory but if one is union citizen and the other non eu they can't?what a shameful act.Anyways any update about those applying outside d state?According to Irish times the Dept said fw applications has been refused and few has been granted.

[walrusgumble]

Thanks obie on this insight but since this ruling has far reaching impact i will not be surprised and speaking hypothetically I can see Ireland/UK or even other states going down this route to restrict parents of EU citizen returning who did not fight or serve with deportation orders. This ruling will be open to abuse just like Metock is at the expense of genuines. States will look to find loophole and the loophole is that the EU citizen child is not in danger and enrolled in School and doing fine in the non-eu country imho. It will be made tough for cohabiting couples. States will also argue that the parents return to their countries on their own accord and had no problem doing so albeit scenario is different as the parents had no choice but to return since their visas expired or expiring. @ Walrus, zambrano kids are not Colombian citizen/dual nationals. But i understand that they can qualify to be one due to parentage.

How is it open to abuse? You either live the the country you geuinely declare that your been deprived of residing or your not? Where is the suggestions? What loop holes is their to the established basis that residency counts!!!!!! You should mean that it would be the agenda setters like the ECJ who seek loopholes to causing Zambrano to extend to completely other areas.

Where was the abuse after Metock?
There is very little chance of ECJ getting away with interfering with internal matters. If they don't do it with adults, children can not be justified.

This will be a welcome return from the dangerous and "abusive" use of Court powers and their failure to respect areas of law outside their completence as seen in Metock and Zambrano.

Citizen's rights, or Constitutional Rights in Ireland tend to be based on one actually residing in Ireland. The same attitude goes to other Countries. Irish Citizens in countries other than Ireland are not for example entitled to vote in the Dail. They may not automatically be entitled to certain welfare upon return from another country. Something tells me that the ECJ won't be so quick in shoving some of their undemocratic (I said some) values in the area of free movement in light of European Wide economic climate.

If you are going to rely on Zambrano why can't you not actually read what it says, especially in light of McCarthy? It does not actually provide a "general right"


Its funny how you can make such (correct) observations and have fans agreeing with you. I point these exact points out 2-4 months ago and get the same muppets talking any sort of nonsense as it does not agree with their perfect world. Oh well.


Regarding the Coloumbian, that is what I am on about, they have entitlement to Columbian nationality and would easily get it. No automatic right to citizenship on basis of parents? (born abroad)

[walrusgumble]

The rights of third country nationals, as decided in the Zambrano case, derive from the rights of the citizen child. So even if it is considered one or both of the parents were "abusing the system" it doesn't matter. The actions and motivations of the parents are irrelevent. If there were security or serious public policy considerations these may come in to be weighed, but if not then the situation is clear cut. States may look for "loopholes" but my belief is that this would be an expensive and futile excercise. These cases should have been decided in the same way under existing law, before the Treaty and Zambrano, following the best interests of the child and constitutional right to reside.
I know there are many in the DoJ (and amongst their legal advisors) that will be urging the Minister tor restrict the scope of Zambrano but he seems to be continuing to ignore them, and has re-iterated the policy he announced just after the Court of Justice's decision.

While that is correct vis a vis Metock and dealing with EU nationals in host states, the same can not be said about static nationals who do not exercise their EU rights which Zambrano did not do.

Its one thing to interfere with soverign rights to say a child should not be deported indirectly from the country where it has lived, its a far another and ridiculous contention that the EU can tell the Member State to allow all third country national family members in if the EU national did not live in that country (or other EU countries via Singh or Eind - thus actually rightly, relying on eu law upon return)

People really need to study what the doctrines of competence, proportionality and what the Free movement Treaty Articles actually say,



What actual legal basis do people have to contend for such trite? (Don't give the toss about "its the right thing" or "its obvious" - Zambrano is legally, anything but obvious, a quick glance at legal journals will suggest this)

[walrusgumble]

If that is truly d stance of d Danish Authorities on zambrano,that means their level of foolishness is very high.So does that mean if both parents are non eu they can stay with the child in territory but if one is union citizen and the other non eu they can't?what a shameful act.Anyways any update about those applying outside d state?According to Irish times the Dept said fw applications has been refused and few has been granted.

The point is that (not my opinion)
The child is not genuinely deprived of a right to live in the European Union if it has to leave in order to be with family. Ie it can stay in the country of birth, or country of EU parent, ie still in the Union. That what Zambrano provides, in light of McCarthy.

This is a similar attitude taken by ECtHR under Article 8.2

[walrusgumble]

This is the Danish government's official stance on Zambrano:

If one of the parents is a union-citizen the child can stay in Denmark with that parent. This way the child's right to remain on Union territory is uninfringed. Therefore there is no need for issueing work-and residence permits to the third-country parent of such a union-citizen child.

Of course, the child's right to a family life as enshrined in ECHR article 8 is *ss-raped in the process but hey..

The first refusal based on this rather alternative interpretation of Zambrano was published on the Ministry of Integration's website 3 days ago:

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/da-dk/legalinf ... dommen.htm

MSH.

Raped in the Process? Care to read the whole of the Article, especailly Article 8.2 and corresponding case law

[Morrisj]

@Wals Glad u said not ur opinion n u said Zambrano in light of Macarthy thats another smart line Mr,Zambrano is entirely diff. from Mcarthy in d sense that d former is all about minors of the European Union who cant enjoy their rights and movement across the Eu without their parents,so refusing one of d parents whether non eu or not the right of residency and to work deprives the child/children completely.so dont give me that shit that a child's right is not being deprived,if one parent is in d union.

[ImmigrationLawyer]

Maybe walrus would feel more at home in Denmark now, but our government has chosen a less restrictive interpretation of Zamrbano (which I think is the correct interoretation) and our society will be the better for it. Happy days.

[Morrisj]

The Danish Authorities r very stupid,shows how much they regard the right of their Adult citizens,if most of them that r married to non eu with minor children cant benefit from Zambrano and non eu families with minor children(danish citizens) can benefit from Zambrano.To be honest the only reason of refusal should either be of criminal record as Shatter stated or if one parent is dead,as far they are both alive they ve every right to live and work in that union just like other Irish parents of irish minor

[walrusgumble]

@Wals Glad u said not ur opinion n u said Zambrano in light of Macarthy thats another smart line Mr,Zambrano is entirely diff. from Mcarthy in d sense that d former is all about minors of the European Union who cant enjoy their rights and movement across the Eu without their parents,so refusing one of d parents whether non eu or not the right of residency and to work deprives the child/children completely.so dont give me that shit that a child's right is not being deprived,if one parent is in d union.

You should probably bear that in mind when you read most of my posts. I have made a number of statements when criticising, over the last few months which have been attacked for no logical reasons. Finally some intelligent people are coming to the same, or similar point of views that I have highlighted while not neccessarily personally agreeing with same, and nothing is said to them.

"so dont give me that shit that a child's right is not being deprived,if one parent is in d union."

Excuse me boy wonder, but you can not claim to be deprived of a right if you have never exercised same. Residency is required. They never lived in Ireland on a solid basis, their main home was or is elsewhere. They hold citizenship of other countries too.

Not every parent relying on Zambrano, will have problems trying to get over to another part of the Union if they wished.

As for the one parent rule, isn't a child's right of residence damaged when a parent goes to jail? Was the child's right to have all family members affected when one of the parents decided for whatever reason not to follow the mother and child to the new country ?(leaving them on their own to defend themselves)?

In many of the cases before the Irish Courts, they involved in active fathers who only came to Ireland years after the mother secured residence. They only found an interest after this. The mother gets to stay so its toss to say that their is a "genuine deprivement" as oppose to mere "deprivement" of their eu rights ie right to stay in Ireland.

If they want to get full and undiscretional rights let them go to another EU state to exercise same. The ECJ are going far too wide of their remit to allow such a broad interpretation of the Articles 20 & 21 TFEU without an Amending Treaty to actually specify the rights of EU "Citizens" like say the artilce of workers (Article 45tfeu)

What rights in law do these children even have to family reunification because its not Directive 2004/38EC and IBC 05 made matters very clear. You can not say for certain that Zambrano says that.

If one parent is legaly resident in the State, that child can stay in the country. Its their choice was they wish to do next, leave or stay. Zambrano, the child did not have such a choice. It was the same with McCarthy, either choose to go elsewhere in the EU in order to exercise eu rights and help partner stay, or do nothing and let him get deported.



You honestly think Member State's will allow this Judgment to potentially open the doors to any tom dick and harry who claims to hold a passport of an EU state (whether they were born in that state, or obtained same by decent) despite never really living in that country? Ireland is not the only country in America etc with a large Diasapora of people who are entitled to Citizenship. Don't be so naive.

[walrusgumble]

Maybe walrus would feel more at home in Denmark now, but our government has chosen a less restrictive interpretation of Zamrbano (which I think is the correct interoretation) and our society will be the better for it. Happy days.

Would you probably be not so smug if you weren't making your livelihood out of this. Still, with the economic so bad, I suppose you now have to focus in other areas soon Areas, where legal basis has value as oppose to the make it up as you go along so long as we get the right result. How much of the Applications you do for free (I can actually say that those I helped, as they were friends or friends of friends I did it for nothing)

You being a lawyer would be well aware of the importance of how judges come to decisions. The process of which the ECJ have displayed in the last while being severly flawed.

How many academic writers (or worth) are all too positive in HOW certain freemovement cases in the past 6 years came to the conclusions they did?


Actually, since you are a lawyer, would you mind telling us how such legal opinions have come in the way that they did, in light of the principles such as competence, concern of not over stepping the boundaries of what remains EU competence and that of member states. There is no explanation in Zambrano that competely justifies why internal rule situation was violated, i don't think they even bothered to argue the Charter of Fundamental Rights. At least if they adopted the detailed line of AG at least we know where they are coming from, but the ECJ did no such thing.


THe Court was arrogant too, in Metock for refusing to explain why Akrich needed to be reconsidered, its not like Jia involved legal residence. Shouldn't it always be assumed that the law of residence will only support those who comply with the law (obviously not in Europe)

The boy wonders shite on about D'hoop and Grycsk (yes I know, it has direct effect, big deal, any clear provision in the treaty has same") Avello etc yet conveniently fail to recongise that in the former, most of the principles of equality in relation to social welfare etc is now gone due to Article 24 of Directive 2004/38EC , not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with right of non nationals or residency rights.

We are told that Citizenship is complementary and would not be additional or replaced. Yet we have , unaccountable Advocate Generals clearly suggests the contrary (Fundamental .....) tahnkfully ECJ ignoring same. There is nothing of the thing in Artilce 20 TFEU. Between that and it's sister Provision Article 21 is it clear that Freemovement is needed in order to enjoy family reunfication of non eu's. The right of Freemovement requires actual movement. THe EU is clear that it can not enroach in areas of family reunificiation when it solely deals with internal law.



government has chosen a less restrictive interpretation of Zamrbano (which I think is the correct interoretation) and our society will be the better for it. Happy days"

Of course it is, more money for you. Correct me if I am wrong, but the recent statements of the department would shown that they too are applying Zambrano rather strictly too (not as bad as Denmark, though it is arguable that once they get permission to stay, they fall under domestic immigration laws)

Point to the actual legal basis for why its the correct interpretation

[Morrisj]

@Wals u r really good at writing crap and shit stories to divert discussion 2 Wals's policy but as i said earlier do that to others not me cos am too smart intelligent and honest 4 ur cunny and shit stories.u said most parents only came after IBC mothers have secured residency so refusal of such parents wnt deprive d child,What about families that were together as a family unit even before they gave birth to their Irish children and they eventually deported?what would say about the families in such class?

[Obie]

Reasoning with Walrusgrumble is like knocking one's head agaianst a brick wall.

The CJEU has the jurisdiction of interpreting EU law, and it seems on the face of your legally baseless argument, that you are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of this great institution.

I have said it countless number of times, and i will repeat it again, whether your like it or not, Zambrano is here to stay, no if no buts.

Nations like Denmark, are an unlawful entity. The implementation of their fascist policy and interpretation of Zambrano, does not follow the letter of Zambrano Judgement, neither does it follow its spirit.

Any decent and law abiding citizen of Ireland, should be proud of a great minister like Mr Shatters. Who is quite a smart person, with lots of expertise in law.

He has applied zambrano to its letter and spirit.

I see no flaw with Zambrano Judgement. If a Chen child can come to Ireland with their parents and reside their. Why should a minor Irish child be denied such rights.

How could you envisage a situation where your compatriot are denied the benefits you enjoyed , such as the right to live with your family, in your home country, and receive the same facilites afforded to you.

It is only a monster, that will complain about the logic in Zambrano

[walrusgumble]

@Wals u r really good at writing crap and shit stories to divert discussion 2 Wals's policy but as i said earlier do that to others not me cos am too smart intelligent and honest 4 ur cunny and shit stories.u said most parents only came after IBC mothers have secured residency so refusal of such parents wnt deprive d child,What about families that were together as a family unit even before they gave birth to their Irish children and they eventually deported?what would say about the families in such class?

Morris, you neither have the competence or capability to discuss what EU law actually says, as oppose to what you or Advocate Generals would like it to say. So you should refrain from making any comment whatsoever. This is especially the case when, instead you should counter argue my comments with your argument that I am wrong (which you can't dismiss the validity of the questions). However, you can't or won't a disguise your inability to do so by countering that someone is insulting another.

Until you do actually educate yourself in this area, you should refrain from classifing what is crap and shit. You are not only coming across as an extremely ignorant person but also one of low intelligence. To and see what the law actually says and not what you would like it to be. Your intrepretation will not be forced down everyone's throat. It is not "stories", its facts, deal with them.

Lawyer puts himself/herself out to be an expert in this area, he / she will be absolutely aware that the comments that I have made are completely valid questions, which have being discussed by his / her fellow legal colleagues, in various forms, whether it is law journals and the like.


I am perfectly within my right to respond to a false assumption raised by Immigration Lawyer and the insinuation made by him. I have questioned his / her qualification as he /she has clearly failed to acknowledge that there are valid criticisms to be raised in those ECJ cases. He / She is now invited to put his / her money where his/her mouth is and directly answer the questions put to him/her and a sound basis (and not some cop put trite - oh the treaty says so - because its very silent on this area)

"u said most parents only came after IBC mothers have secured residency so refusal of such parents wnt deprive d child,What about families that were together as a family unit even before they gave birth to their Irish children and they eventually deported?what would say about the families in such class"

First of all, what about them?With regard to the example you have given, I would have more sympathy. If under Irish law, they meet the conditions set out in Dimbo or Old Fajuonu, then fine. But you completely ignore the fact that Irish people had clear intentions in the aftermath of the Irish Supreme Court decision of 2003 when they decided to change the laws on citizenship in 2004 (ie to stop incidents like the "baby boom" happening again - no surprise that the asylum figures went down steadily thereafter)

You are also ignoring the fact that EU law has no right to interfere with matters that are outside their remit (ie domestic immigration where freemovement provisions no matter how liberal are present). The Citizenship provision, which clearly talks about actual movement was artifically used. Even, worse, the European Court seems ok with the idea that they can treat one class of citizens (ie minors in Zambrano) differently to another (ie British nationals in Britian McCarthy). Worse, the court refuse to discuss these issues

Secondly I said that the HIGH COURT cases, past and present, predominately involve Fathers who came over to Ireland AFTER residence was secured. That is the only example given and I have not dismissed other scenerios which you raised. For you to suggest otherwise indicatates you don't read people's posts fully and prefer to cherry pick. All of my posts regarding IBC have always been on the basis of the actual Irish situation and no more.

[walrusgumble]

Reasoning with Walrusgrumble is like knocking one's head agaianst a brick wall.

The CJEU has the jurisdiction of interpreting EU law, and it seems on the face of your legally baseless argument, that you are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of this great institution.

I have said it countless number of times, and i will repeat it again, whether your like it or not, Zambrano is here to stay, no if no buts.

Nations like Denmark, are an unlawful entity. The implementation of their fascist policy and interpretation of Zambrano, does not follow the letter of Zambrano Judgement, neither does it follow its spirit.

Any decent and law abiding citizen of Ireland, should be proud of a great minister like Mr Shatters. Who is quite a smart person, with lots of expertise in law.

He has applied zambrano to its letter and spirit.

I see no flaw with Zambrano Judgement. If a Chen child can come to Ireland with their parents and reside their. Why should a minor Irish child be denied such rights.

How could you envisage a situation where your compatriot are denied the benefits you enjoyed , such as the right to live with your family, in your home country, and receive the same facilites afforded to you.

It is only a monster, that will complain about the logic in Zambrano

Again, go and educate your self on what EU law actually says.

Of course you see no problem, you have a self interest in the case. I am not complaining about the result per se. I am complaining about the method and interpretation as to how they came to the conclusions they did. hence the term "HOW" the courts made the decision. There was no legal basis for same, and there is no legal basis to simply take a different route to the limited Chen case.

"The CJEU has the jurisdiction of interpreting EU law, and it seems on the face of your legally baseless argument, that you are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of this great institution. "

You are partly correct, but you are far too stupid to realise that the CJEU does not have general jurisdiction. Jurisdiction only goes as far as what the EUropean Union has exclusive competence in. This was made clear in McCarthy. Like the recent ECJ cases, you argue that my point is groundless yet you are incapable to stating in full why. I don't need to challenge the legitmacy of the Union, as the Treaty makes it clear what it can and can not do. When you finish with elementary books, go and see Article 5 TEU and then look at what the Treaty actually says. Very little on dictating the rights of nationals who never moved from their country and their right to third country national families.


"I have said it countless number of times, and i will repeat it again, whether your like it or not, Zambrano is here to stay, no if no buts"

No guarantee as case law and amendments in legislation always shows.

"Nations like Denmark, are an unlawful entity. The implementation of their fascist policy and interpretation of Zambrano, does not follow the letter of Zambrano Judgement, neither does it follow its spirit. "

And African and Asian nations can never be accussed of "fascism" and facial explotiation of their own people?. Yes, that gets me wonder what all those wars in those two contitents have being about so.

How can you can Danish don't follow the letter of Zambrano? Zambrano involved people who actually stayed in Belgium for a period of time and continued to use it as their home.

The spirit? What rewarding illegals and failed asylum seekers by giving them a back door into the Union. Yeah, I can really see the Council of Ministers loving this when they are meeting in Brussels.

[Morrisj]

@wals,u said am of low intelligence yet u dnt even know what national measures are.The art. covering Zambrano says it precludes nationals measures(domestic policy,wals policy,Dermot's policy)As u know Eu laws supercedes national law,if any of the memberstate can adhere to that,then they should stop being a member of the union.am gonna ask u a question on my next post to show u how foolish and blind ur arguments are because if u say yes to d question means u r a complete retard,if u say no means u r a (swearword for a bad person)

[Morrisj]

@Wals,According to Danish stance on zambrano?Would u like to be deprived of ur right to have your family members especially now when non eea are availing of such right through their minor Irish born kids as well as the Automatic right of other Eu citizens in Ireland?Please i kindly advise u not answer this,cos if u do,everybody will know d real dark part of u.If u say yeah,means u r a retard.u r only saying yes cos u dnt ve a non eu family member and u dnt wish to have one as a family member.If u say no

[Morrisj]

@wals,if u say no means u r a (swearword for a bad person) cos u r now turning ur back against the stance of the Danish which would be very clear to see that u r just a selfish (swearword for a bad person) who cares about his own situation all becos not everyone was born with a silver spoon.It baffles me so much to see u using immigration history like false asylum claims etc to reject Zambrano&the right of non eea parents of Irish citizens,what about most spouses of Eu citizens in Ireland?were they not false asylum seekers yet u dnt ve a pro with that

[ImmigrationLawyer]

I heard the Zambrano case and the government 's response is to be discussed on rte prime time tonight

[walrusgumble]

Reasoning with Walrusgrumble is like knocking one's head agaianst a brick wall.

The CJEU has the jurisdiction of interpreting EU law, and it seems on the face of your legally baseless argument, that you are seeking to challenge the legitimacy of this great institution.

I have said it countless number of times, and i will repeat it again, whether your like it or not, Zambrano is here to stay, no if no buts.

Nations like Denmark, are an unlawful entity. The implementation of their fascist policy and interpretation of Zambrano, does not follow the letter of Zambrano Judgement, neither does it follow its spirit.

Any decent and law abiding citizen of Ireland, should be proud of a great minister like Mr Shatters. Who is quite a smart person, with lots of expertise in law.

He has applied zambrano to its letter and spirit.

I see no flaw with Zambrano Judgement. If a Chen child can come to Ireland with their parents and reside their. Why should a minor Irish child be denied such rights.

How could you envisage a situation where your compatriot are denied the benefits you enjoyed , such as the right to live with your family, in your home country, and receive the same facilites afforded to you.

It is only a monster, that will complain about the logic in Zambrano

Arguing? reasoning? eh sorry people have rarely entered a discussion here to provide the legal basis for their point of view. the only "reasoning " coming from many is on the basis of "well it should be this" or "it makes no sense" or "its clear " (without pointing out why its clear) so when that does happen, maybe you could then call it reasoning or arguing.

when it put to people the legal basis, they get all backs against the wall complain that is it somehow stories made up on the hoof (despite 50 odd years of certain theories develop by the very court you all idolise and swiped away by the same unelected (democratically) by these courts. that is not so bad, but what makes it bad is the very dubious reasoning for coming to the conclusions. in most european countries, states are expected to respect some form of what is known as separation of powers. the elected politicans are the law makers not the court. this is not the same in europe - even immigration lawyer (assuming they have trained in ireland or britain would at least acknowledge that fact - whether they agree with it or not is another matter)

at least go and read the text books before making such statements. tip, areas of competence, proportionality, subsidiarity is a start.