Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[walrusgumble]

Every thing u posted so far is irrelevant, r u insane or what?or just intentionally doing this 2 piss people off?

so u have no problem with the legal parents but u have problem with the illegal parents so i guess u have moved from non nationals to asylum seeker from and now is illegal parent? u must be crazy to punish a child because of his/her parent(s) immigration history,mind u kids of legal parents and kids of illegal parents r f...king the same kids are kids and,kids from any part of the world r the same they should all be treated equally.

Just say a white irish kid should benefit more than a black or mixed irish kid because thats what u r indirectly trying 2 say here idiot.

ohhh tell me hw r the illegal irish in America different from the illegal non irish in Ireland? U must really be a fool and i think am wasting my time arguing with ur weak brain.

Go to hell u hypocrite.[/quote]

You neither have the intelligence and capability to give any view as to what is irrelevant or insane. Funny, considering some of the stuff that you have said is off the wall and you would appreciate this if this was in your country. Most of my comments are a straight and fully reply to all of your comments. They are rebuttals to what you have said. So then it does not say alot about what you have said.


You have actually being asked to enlighten us with your view as to why its irrelevant. You clearly don't know why do you. Why bother responding? You do not even understand what is being disguist.

The Shatter reference was a off the cuff mark to those who prematurely are championing Shatter and are of the muslim faith. He is responsible for Equality too. There was a very clear and well known concern about Shatter becoming a Minister. There would have been huge criticism if he was appointment the Foregin Minister because of his views. I simply stated that I hope he does not allow his own prejudice get in the away of making a fair decision when dealing with people of certain regions. Patty then responded to this. A discussion, which was nothing to do with you (because it would have flown completely over your head, as most things do) We both agreed that it was not an issue thats irrelevant here, but a side track. If you read the posts you would note that I acknowledged this. So why you raising it, you were not involved in that discussion. Again, neither you or Patty raised anything to rebut the comment. Again, this was only in response to other's comments. This part is irrelevant to the main part of the subject, ie Zambrano

Its it hitting a nerve that I keep asking for your views on how your own country deals with these cases? Why have you failed to disclose it?

As for the American - Irish things, and illegal here Go and ask the Americans. Why is there such hostility towards Mexicans as oppose to the Irish over in America? I think you know. Maybe Something to do with actually being able to start from stratch and make serious money, all without the safety net of social protection. they got on with things and don't demand stuff that they are not entitled too. They Then of course there's the fact that there is a large and important Irish vote to be grabbed by the politicans. Me weak mind, you blind as a bat. - Anyway, I am simply responding to your comment, and yes this part is irrelevant. But you were the one who raised this and not me. You have not explained why you believed that it was relevant to raise the comparison.

"Just say a white irish kid should benefit more than a black or mixed irish kid because thats what u r indirectly trying 2 say here idiot."

No. Keep colour out of it. Its irrelevant and a very lazy counter argument as there has been nothing in my posts to suggest it. Even your peers have acknowledged this!. And no your are not indirectly saying white people should get more benefits. THe non EU immigrants are not all black in the first place, genius.

The main hostility towards Zambrano is that (1)it rewards failed/frivolous asylum seekers in Ireland. (2) The reason is also because THe ECJ had no competence to do this. It was an internal matter. They deal with free movement. They can't dictate what a country does to its own when EU laws on Free movement are not application.

It was a case of lying cheating so and sos coming to ireland illegally (paying thousands to do so yet expecting this state to pay for their medical and living expenses) defaming their countries. They entered to apply for protection. A majority knew that they had no case and came solely for economic reasons and to take advantage of the citizenship rules. Its dishonest. The view would be still in place even if the people in question were white american catholics or billionaire Australians who is a proven relation of CS Parnell.

You don't agree with my view, but of course you would not, its probably how you got into this country. But that's fair enough. But get it into your thick skull, its got nothing to do with one's original background. I would not take such a view if these people had work permits or had legal status independently of the birth of the child. Anway, that little problem is sorted now.

[acme4242]

ok that's enough, please mods do something,

[walrusgumble]

Every thing u posted so far is irrelevant, r u insane or what?or just intentionally doing this 2 piss people off?

so u have no problem with the legal parents but u have problem with the illegal parents so i guess u have moved from non nationals to asylum seeker from and now is illegal parent? u must be crazy to punish a child because of his/her parent(s) immigration history,mind u kids of legal parents and kids of illegal parents r f...king the same kids are kids and,kids from any part of the world r the same they should all be treated equally.

Just say a white irish kid should benefit more than a black or mixed irish kid because thats what u r indirectly trying 2 say here idiot.

ohhh tell me hw r the illegal irish in America different from the illegal non irish in Ireland? U must really be a fool and i think am wasting my time arguing with ur weak brain.

Go to hell u hypocrite.

You neither have the intelligence and capability to give any view as to what is irrelevant or insane. Read what you have said. I have no moved side. In Ireland, most illegal people = non EU people who are failed asylum seekers. Sorry i used the different words to describe them so interchangably. The kids are not the same. If a child was born now to illegal parents who are non eu, they are not the same as children of irish, eu or legal non eu people as the kid as well as their parent is not going to get residency. This is not a one world country, and I am talking from a legal point of view and not like you , who is talking from a humanitarian point of view (and talking through yer arse)



Funny, considering some of the stuff that you have said is off the wall and you would appreciate this if this was in your country. Most of my comments are a straight and fully reply to all of your comments. They are rebuttals to what you have said. So then it does not say alot about what you have said.


You have actually being asked to enlighten us with your view as to why its irrelevant. You clearly don't know why do you. Why bother responding? You do not even understand what is being disguist.

The Shatter reference was a off the cuff mark to those who prematurely are championing Shatter and are of the muslim faith. He is responsible for Equality too. There was a very clear and well known concern about Shatter becoming a Minister. There would have been huge criticism if he was appointment the Foregin Minister because of his views. I simply stated that I hope he does not allow his own prejudice get in the away of making a fair decision when dealing with people of certain regions. Patty then responded to this. A discussion, which was nothing to do with you (because it would have flown completely over your head, as most things do) We both agreed that it was not an issue thats irrelevant here, but a side track. If you read the posts you would note that I acknowledged this. So why you raising it, you were not involved in that discussion. Again, neither you or Patty raised anything to rebut the comment. Again, this was only in response to other's comments. This part is irrelevant to the main part of the subject, ie Zambrano

Its it hitting a nerve that I keep asking for your views on how your own country deals with these cases? Why have you failed to disclose it?

As for the American - Irish things, and illegal here Go and ask the Americans. Why is there such hostility towards Mexicans as oppose to the Irish over in America? I think you know. Maybe Something to do with actually being able to start from stratch and make serious money, all without the safety net of social protection. they got on with things and don't demand stuff that they are not entitled too. They Then of course there's the fact that there is a large and important Irish vote to be grabbed by the politicans. Me weak mind, you blind as a bat. - Anyway, I am simply responding to your comment, and yes this part is irrelevant. But you were the one who raised this and not me. You have not explained why you believed that it was relevant to raise the comparison.

"Just say a white irish kid should benefit more than a black or mixed irish kid because thats what u r indirectly trying 2 say here idiot."

No. Keep colour out of it. Its irrelevant and a very lazy counter argument as there has been nothing in my posts to suggest it. Even your peers have acknowledged this!. And no your are not indirectly saying white people should get more benefits. THe non EU immigrants are not all black in the first place, genius.

The main hostility towards Zambrano is that (1)it rewards failed/frivolous asylum seekers in Ireland. (2) The reason is also because THe ECJ had no competence to do this. It was an internal matter. They deal with free movement. They can't dictate what a country does to its own when EU laws on Free movement are not application.

It was a case of lying cheating so and sos coming to ireland illegally (paying thousands to do so yet expecting this state to pay for their medical and living expenses) defaming their countries. They entered to apply for protection. A majority knew that they had no case and came solely for economic reasons and to take advantage of the citizenship rules. Its dishonest. The view would be still in place even if the people in question were white american catholics or billionaire Australians who is a proven relation of CS Parnell.

You don't agree with my view, but of course you would not, its probably how you got into this country. But that's fair enough. But get it into your thick skull, its got nothing to do with one's original background. I would not take such a view if these people had work permits or had legal status independently of the birth of the child. Anway, that little problem is sorted now.[/quote]

[Ayan]

The zambrano judgement only applies to the parents of Irish citizen children or it is Applicable to the parents of All Eu citizen children. I have two Eu citizen children but they are not Irish nationals. Is it possible to get residence permit on behalf of my Eu citizen children in Ireland???

[walrusgumble]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the ramble the the 2 of you are posting but managed the last few lines of the last post.

This thread has just turned into name calling and really should be locked.

It is going no where.

say out of it then! people like morris should refrain from commenting as he does not understand what he is talking about even when its clearly explained and its no different to what his country does.even you know that there are home truths. it seems people's clear motive and support for the sc in 04 is wrong. he seems to have a major problem understanding what judicial review means and the difference between a pure legal judgment and apolitical one, the latter is what zambrano was,thats not the funcyion of the ecj.he also has difficulity understanding the difference between an illegal and legal.

[Morrisj]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the ramble the the 2 of you are posting but managed the last few lines of the last post.

This thread has just turned into name calling and really should be locked.

It is going no where.

say out of it then! people like morris should refrain from commenting as he does not understand what he is talking about even when its clearly explained and its no different to what his country does.even you know that there are home truths. it seems people's clear motive and support for the sc in 04 is wrong. he seems to have a major problem understanding what judicial review means and the difference between a pure legal judgment and apolitical one, the latter is what zambrano was,thats not the funcyion of the ecj.he also has difficulity understanding the difference between an illegal and legal.

go get married 2 a goat cos u think ,act like a GOAT u r d one who is confusing urself not me

[walrusgumble]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the ramble the the 2 of you are posting but managed the last few lines of the last post.

This thread has just turned into name calling and really should be locked.

It is going no where.

say out of it then! people like morris should refrain from commenting as he does not understand what he is talking about even when its clearly explained and its no different to what his country does.even you know that there are home truths. it seems people's clear motive and support for the sc in 04 is wrong. he seems to have a major problem understanding what judicial review means and the difference between a pure legal judgment and apolitical one, the latter is what zambrano was,thats not the funcyion of the ecj.he also has difficulity understanding the difference between an illegal and legal.

go get married 2 a goat cos u think ,act like a GOAT u r d one who is confusing urself not me

Where I am from the marriage would not be valid. In 6 months, I would say neither is bigamy. Sure it probably would be of no use to me either, can't see the advantages.

Good job Monife's or anyone else's lawyers can respond a bit better than you. They are going to need to

Sad really, since ye are the Champion Warriors of Discrimination, the fact that you don't at least acknowledge the clear legal discrimination Zambrano does if it affected eu adults who wish to now move to another EU state is rather self serving. (nationality and status of family)

Views on McCarthy and its attitude towards reverse discrimination, or lack of specific reference to it?

[Morrisj]

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the ramble the the 2 of you are posting but managed the last few lines of the last post.

This thread has just turned into name calling and really should be locked.

It is going no where.

say out of it then! people like morris should refrain from commenting as he does not understand what he is talking about even when its clearly explained and its no different to what his country does.even you know that there are home truths. it seems people's clear motive and support for the sc in 04 is wrong. he seems to have a major problem understanding what judicial review means and the difference between a pure legal judgment and apolitical one, the latter is what zambrano was,thats not the funcyion of the ecj.he also has difficulity understanding the difference between an illegal and legal.

go get married 2 a goat cos u think ,act like a GOAT u r d one who is confusing urself not me

Where I am from the marriage would not be valid. In 6 months, I would say neither is bigamy. Sure it probably would be of no use to me either, can't see the advantages.

Good job Monife's or anyone else's lawyers can respond a bit better than you. They are going to need to

Sad really, since ye are the Champion Warriors of Discrimination, the fact that you don't at least acknowledge the clear legal discrimination Zambrano does if it affected eu adults who wish to now move to another EU state is rather self serving. (nationality and status of family)

Views on McCarthy and its attitude towards reverse discrimination, or lack of specific reference to it?

Lol how old r u son?u act like u r in ur mid 20's.....haha nice move trying to drag Monife to ur side hahah u know what if Monife thinks ur whole point of view from the begining of this topic is right then u and Monife dnt really know what youse r doing or saying am been honest.

Monife or anyone else's lawyer ''bit better'' .son u must think u r d best or better than everyone,dont use smart words for me cos ur brain is still 2 low compare to mine u r nt bothered about zambrano u r bothered cos it favoured blacks from Nigeria simple.

Go read ABCD EF....that will help u to re-arrange the way u think

[walrusgumble]

say out of it then! people like morris should refrain from commenting as he does not understand what he is talking about even when its clearly explained and its no different to what his country does.even you know that there are home truths. it seems people's clear motive and support for the sc in 04 is wrong. he seems to have a major problem understanding what judicial review means and the difference between a pure legal judgment and apolitical one, the latter is what zambrano was,thats not the funcyion of the ecj.he also has difficulity understanding the difference between an illegal and legal.

go get married 2 a goat cos u think ,act like a GOAT u r d one who is confusing urself not me

Where I am from the marriage would not be valid. In 6 months, I would say neither is bigamy. Sure it probably would be of no use to me either, can't see the advantages.

Good job Monife's or anyone else's lawyers can respond a bit better than you. They are going to need to

Sad really, since ye are the Champion Warriors of Discrimination, the fact that you don't at least acknowledge the clear legal discrimination Zambrano does if it affected eu adults who wish to now move to another EU state is rather self serving. (nationality and status of family)

Views on McCarthy and its attitude towards reverse discrimination, or lack of specific reference to it?

Lol how old r u son?u act like u r in ur mid 20's.....haha nice move trying to drag Monife to ur side hahah u know what if Monife thinks ur whole point of view from the begining of this topic is right then u and Monife dnt really know what youse r doing or saying am been honest.

Monife or anyone else's lawyer ''bit better'' .son u must think u r d best or better than everyone,dont use smart words for me cos ur brain is still 2 low compare to mine u r nt bothered about zambrano u r bothered cos it favoured blacks from Nigeria simple.

Go read ABCD EF....that will help u to re-arrange the way u think

29 years, why? I did not realise that there was a certain age one could marry. As you know, in some cultures and countries people marry at 16 or less. In our own country, no more than 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to be married by 23 and even 17 years further. What are you really getting at?

I can't see how Monife is going to turn to my way of thinking. But, at least it is honest and accurate enough regarding her situation. As for not knowing what I am saying, maybe pick up text books on EU, in fairness to you, dated 5-10 years ago. Then you will see where I am coming from on the traditional interpretation on EU Law.

As you have acknowledged I stated "Monife or anyone else's lawyers". It was not an attempt to drag Monife to anything. She is referred to as she is the only one here that has a case before the courts. In addition, it refers to her lawyers and not herself.

Regarding Zambrano, I care that the ECJ have overstepped its remit. The treaty simple says that citizenship is a complement and not addition. The princple of subsidiarity states that the EU can not infringe where it does not have the power to do so via the Treaty. The Treaty refers goes on to talk about freemovement of people, services, capital and goods from one EU country to another. It does not provide for a situation like Zambrano. In addition, the Citizenship artilce in the Treaty refers to the fact that rules regarding citizenship is governed by secondary legislation. That legislation is the Citizens Directive 2004/38 EC. No where in that legislation does it state that people, regardless of age, can rely on EU citizenship law if they have not moved. Even the EU Commission were against Zambrano.

The Treaty itself was envoked on a humanitarian basis in exceptional case as seen in Chen and Zambrano. The reason can be best explained by the AG in McCarthy when he distinguished a case involving a minor child and a case involving adults. The ECJ in that case hung onto this by stating that in the case of a minor child, it is unlikely that they could actually successfully move to another EU State. Unless of course, in my own opinion it could rely on the case of Chen.

By indirectly removing the child, one effectively ruins that child's FUTURE and Potential from ever being allowed to exercise their EU rights, something that the EU defends.

However, in a case involving an EU adult,that adult can go and exercise their rights if they choose to do so. However, I will point out, McCarthy did also say, that the stance applies only IF it turns out that the EU Citizen will be deprived of their EU rights.

One example, I think, where deprivation could occur, is where they do move to another eu country, but can not stay or get family reunification of non eu person if they can't for reasons that they can't be blamed for, fail to comply with Article 7 of 2004/38 EC. What then? They can only go back to the country of origin of the EU citizen. Then, it should be arguable that they treaty then applies in the same line as Zambrano.

I can assure you, that if the ECJ ruled on another issue, outside its competence in the same manner s Zambrano, such as Taxation as a poor example (as it not human) I would be angry. I already stated that if this outcome occurred in the Irish Courts on the basis of domestic law, I would not have had too much problem with it. I believe that Lobe in 2003 was unfair in that it applied to every case thereafter , even for those who were similar to fajunonu 1990 (ie long period of residence) Dimbo sorted this out. Go and read the cases before confirming that I am confused. ONE poster smaked of ignorance to those cases when they commented that I was confused when I stated it earlier.

I could not give a crap nationality or colour the dependents on the Zambrano case are. I do care however that it rewards people who came to Ireland illegally or as asylum seekers on utterly false claims. There is a difference between utterly false claims which are found to lack complete creditibility or grounds of well foundness and genuine cases where it don't meet the narrow criteria of asylum. The case also applies to hard working and honest people who came here, even before the fake boom (2003-2007) on work permits. I am sure many were also black and some were defintely Nigerian as one girl from my former IT workplace (after my stint in the department) came on that basis. I have already said that I would take the same approach, if the person was a white catholic american with long distant blood connection to Ireland.

Your predictable comment on Nigerians and black people which implies beloved does not indicate your so called better mind than others. It is rather tiresome and the more it continues, the less they will be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with one's nationality. There is nothing on these posts or elsewhere to prove a dislike to any particular nation. If you do find it, please show. Otherwise, keep your narrow view and self serving view of what beloved is, to your self

Speaking of Nigeria though, how do you think or know how Nigerians who remained in Nigeria react when they hear the false stories of persecution from claimants? I know that the Nigerian government are not impressed. How does it feel to know that people go abroad and say things that are found to be untrue. The same could be asked of other countries.

Who does Nigeria treat people of other Nationalities , eg Cameroon, whilst in Nigeria. How proud were South Africans who turned to the media in 2008 to see nationals of Zimbabwe being chased back to the boarder, some lit on fire ? see bbc. Again this question applies to other countries, which, funny enough always gets ignored. Discrimination? I , saldy, have no doubt one's own country has done similar to you at some point.

I put it to you again, you do not give a damn about this idea of reverse discrimination so long as you are ok. It is abundantly clear in your answers and your refusal to acknowledge or accept it will happen to other EU citizens who do not have children.

What do you make of the situation where, assuming you are non eu, your fellow country person can't get status even though they are married to an eu citizen eg french etc, because they are not working, self employed , student or self sufficent. yet another couple from your country who never had legal status and a weak asylum claim, might not only get status but access to work (or a chance of same) simply because they had a citizen child. will the person in the first case be rather annoyed?

I find it hilarious that now people like you are so concerned with reverse discrimination. I recall I got rebuffed and told it was irelevant during the Metock case, that it would be unfair to get rid of old regulation 3.2 as an Irish person who did not travel might not succeed in family reunification of an non Eu person under domestic law. One comedian suggested, oh there's nothing stopping him or her from going to another state via shing.

ABCDE.....? That is rich, your spelling and grammer , like mine at times would suggest that it would be better for you to follow your own advice. Is thats the best reply to can make regarding my question to you about McCarthy or your refusal to discuss the actual discrimination of other people who rely on eu law? Like Zambrano, ABCDE.... does not say much regarding how the ECJ could really justify itself in the approach it took. Don't trouble your head replying so. Your great mind will explode

Son? It is not the 1960's. Its funny, if a white person referred to a black person as son or boy, they would rightly be slanted as dearly beloved. You probably should drop that patronising tagline.One of my brother's Cork friends (alright boi) innocently learned the hard way whilst in Australia, really akward situation

As for the smart words, hardly.

[Morrisj]

go get married 2 a goat cos u think ,act like a GOAT u r d one who is confusing urself not me

Where I am from the marriage would not be valid. In 6 months, I would say neither is bigamy. Sure it probably would be of no use to me either, can't see the advantages.

Good job Monife's or anyone else's lawyers can respond a bit better than you. They are going to need to

Sad really, since ye are the Champion Warriors of Discrimination, the fact that you don't at least acknowledge the clear legal discrimination Zambrano does if it affected eu adults who wish to now move to another EU state is rather self serving. (nationality and status of family)

Views on McCarthy and its attitude towards reverse discrimination, or lack of specific reference to it?

Lol how old r u son?u act like u r in ur mid 20's.....haha nice move trying to drag Monife to ur side hahah u know what if Monife thinks ur whole point of view from the begining of this topic is right then u and Monife dnt really know what youse r doing or saying am been honest.

Monife or anyone else's lawyer ''bit better'' .son u must think u r d best or better than everyone,dont use smart words for me cos ur brain is still 2 low compare to mine u r nt bothered about zambrano u r bothered cos it favoured blacks from Nigeria simple.

Go read ABCD EF....that will help u to re-arrange the way u think

29 years, why? I did not realise that there was a certain age one could marry. As you know, in some cultures and countries people marry at 16 or less. In our own country, no more than 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to be married by 23 and even 17 years further. What are you really getting at?

I can't see how Monife is going to turn to my way of thinking. But, at least it is honest and accurate enough regarding her situation. As for not knowing what I am saying, maybe pick up text books on EU, in fairness to you, dated 5-10 years ago. Then you will see where I am coming from on the traditional interpretation on EU Law.

As you have acknowledged I stated "Monife or anyone else's lawyers". It was not an attempt to drag Monife to anything. She is referred to as she is the only one here that has a case before the courts. In addition, it refers to her lawyers and not herself.

Regarding Zambrano, I care that the ECJ have overstepped its remit. The treaty simple says that citizenship is a complement and not addition. The princple of subsidiarity states that the EU can not infringe where it does not have the power to do so via the Treaty. The Treaty refers goes on to talk about freemovement of people, services, capital and goods from one EU country to another. It does not provide for a situation like Zambrano. In addition, the Citizenship artilce in the Treaty refers to the fact that rules regarding citizenship is governed by secondary legislation. That legislation is the Citizens Directive 2004/38 EC. No where in that legislation does it state that people, regardless of age, can rely on EU citizenship law if they have not moved. Even the EU Commission were against Zambrano.

The Treaty itself was envoked on a humanitarian basis in exceptional case as seen in Chen and Zambrano. The reason can be best explained by the AG in McCarthy when he distinguished a case involving a minor child and a case involving adults. The ECJ in that case hung onto this by stating that in the case of a minor child, it is unlikely that they could actually successfully move to another EU State. Unless of course, in my own opinion it could rely on the case of Chen.

By indirectly removing the child, one effectively ruins that child's FUTURE and Potential from ever being allowed to exercise their EU rights, something that the EU defends.

However, in a case involving an EU adult,that adult can go and exercise their rights if they choose to do so. However, I will point out, McCarthy did also say, that the stance applies only IF it turns out that the EU Citizen will be deprived of their EU rights.

One example, I think, where deprivation could occur, is where they do move to another eu country, but can not stay or get family reunification of non eu person if they can't for reasons that they can't be blamed for, fail to comply with Article 7 of 2004/38 EC. What then? They can only go back to the country of origin of the EU citizen. Then, it should be arguable that they treaty then applies in the same line as Zambrano.

I can assure you, that if the ECJ ruled on another issue, outside its competence in the same manner s Zambrano, such as Taxation as a poor example (as it not human) I would be angry. I already stated that if this outcome occurred in the Irish Courts on the basis of domestic law, I would not have had too much problem with it. I believe that Lobe in 2003 was unfair in that it applied to every case thereafter , even for those who were similar to fajunonu 1990 (ie long period of residence) Dimbo sorted this out. Go and read the cases before confirming that I am confused. ONE poster smaked of ignorance to those cases when they commented that I was confused when I stated it earlier.

I could not give a crap nationality or colour the dependents on the Zambrano case are. I do care however that it rewards people who came to Ireland illegally or as asylum seekers on utterly false claims. There is a difference between utterly false claims which are found to lack complete creditibility or grounds of well foundness and genuine cases where it don't meet the narrow criteria of asylum. The case also applies to hard working and honest people who came here, even before the fake boom (2003-2007) on work permits. I am sure many were also black and some were defintely Nigerian as one girl from my former IT workplace (after my stint in the department) came on that basis. I have already said that I would take the same approach, if the person was a white catholic american with long distant blood connection to Ireland.

Your predictable comment on Nigerians and black people which implies beloved does not indicate your so called better mind than others. It is rather tiresome and the more it continues, the less they will be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with one's nationality. There is nothing on these posts or elsewhere to prove a dislike to any particular nation. If you do find it, please show. Otherwise, keep your narrow view and self serving view of what beloved is, to your self

Speaking of Nigeria though, how do you think or know how Nigerians who remained in Nigeria react when they hear the false stories of persecution from claimants? I know that the Nigerian government are not impressed. How does it feel to know that people go abroad and say things that are found to be untrue. The same could be asked of other countries.

Who does Nigeria treat people of other Nationalities , eg Cameroon, whilst in Nigeria. How proud were South Africans who turned to the media in 2008 to see nationals of Zimbabwe being chased back to the boarder, some lit on fire ? see bbc. Again this question applies to other countries, which, funny enough always gets ignored. Discrimination? I , saldy, have no doubt one's own country has done similar to you at some point.

I put it to you again, you do not give a damn about this idea of reverse discrimination so long as you are ok. It is abundantly clear in your answers and your refusal to acknowledge or accept it will happen to other EU citizens who do not have children.

What do you make of the situation where, assuming you are non eu, your fellow country person can't get status even though they are married to an eu citizen eg french etc, because they are not working, self employed , student or self sufficent. yet another couple from your country who never had legal status and a weak asylum claim, might not only get status but access to work (or a chance of same) simply because they had a citizen child. will the person in the first case be rather annoyed?

I find it hilarious that now people like you are so concerned with reverse discrimination. I recall I got rebuffed and told it was irelevant during the Metock case, that it would be unfair to get rid of old regulation 3.2 as an Irish person who did not travel might not succeed in family reunification of an non Eu person under domestic law. One comedian suggested, oh there's nothing stopping him or her from going to another state via shing.

ABCDE.....? That is rich, your spelling and grammer , like mine at times would suggest that it would be better for you to follow your own advice. Is thats the best reply to can make regarding my question to you about McCarthy or your refusal to discuss the actual discrimination of other people who rely on eu law? Like Zambrano, ABCDE.... does not say much regarding how the ECJ could really justify itself in the approach it took. Don't trouble your head replying so. Your great mind will explode

Son? It is not the 1960's. Its funny, if a white person referred to a black person as son or boy, they would rightly be slanted as dearly beloved. You probably should drop that patronising tagline.One of my brother's Cork friends (alright boi) innocently learned the hard way whilst in Australia, really akward situation

As for the smart words, hardly.

Here we go again, u r moaning like a kid and when i said if u r in ur mid 20's,i was not referring to the marriage thingy,i was referring to the way u think.

Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it.

When the minors attains maturity then it can then be at the discretion of the minister if the Parents can still enjoy the right cos i know the right ceases when the minors turns Adult simple.

so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear

You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?

and if u have pro with my grammar as i said u can add that 2 ur surname

[walrusgumble]

Where I am from the marriage would not be valid. In 6 months, I would say neither is bigamy. Sure it probably would be of no use to me either, can't see the advantages.

Good job Monife's or anyone else's lawyers can respond a bit better than you. They are going to need to

Sad really, since ye are the Champion Warriors of Discrimination, the fact that you don't at least acknowledge the clear legal discrimination Zambrano does if it affected eu adults who wish to now move to another EU state is rather self serving. (nationality and status of family)

Views on McCarthy and its attitude towards reverse discrimination, or lack of specific reference to it?

Lol how old r u son?u act like u r in ur mid 20's.....haha nice move trying to drag Monife to ur side hahah u know what if Monife thinks ur whole point of view from the begining of this topic is right then u and Monife dnt really know what youse r doing or saying am been honest.

Monife or anyone else's lawyer ''bit better'' .son u must think u r d best or better than everyone,dont use smart words for me cos ur brain is still 2 low compare to mine u r nt bothered about zambrano u r bothered cos it favoured blacks from Nigeria simple.

Go read ABCD EF....that will help u to re-arrange the way u think

29 years, why? I did not realise that there was a certain age one could marry. As you know, in some cultures and countries people marry at 16 or less. In our own country, no more than 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to be married by 23 and even 17 years further. What are you really getting at?

I can't see how Monife is going to turn to my way of thinking. But, at least it is honest and accurate enough regarding her situation. As for not knowing what I am saying, maybe pick up text books on EU, in fairness to you, dated 5-10 years ago. Then you will see where I am coming from on the traditional interpretation on EU Law.

As you have acknowledged I stated "Monife or anyone else's lawyers". It was not an attempt to drag Monife to anything. She is referred to as she is the only one here that has a case before the courts. In addition, it refers to her lawyers and not herself.

Regarding Zambrano, I care that the ECJ have overstepped its remit. The treaty simple says that citizenship is a complement and not addition. The princple of subsidiarity states that the EU can not infringe where it does not have the power to do so via the Treaty. The Treaty refers goes on to talk about freemovement of people, services, capital and goods from one EU country to another. It does not provide for a situation like Zambrano. In addition, the Citizenship artilce in the Treaty refers to the fact that rules regarding citizenship is governed by secondary legislation. That legislation is the Citizens Directive 2004/38 EC. No where in that legislation does it state that people, regardless of age, can rely on EU citizenship law if they have not moved. Even the EU Commission were against Zambrano.

The Treaty itself was envoked on a humanitarian basis in exceptional case as seen in Chen and Zambrano. The reason can be best explained by the AG in McCarthy when he distinguished a case involving a minor child and a case involving adults. The ECJ in that case hung onto this by stating that in the case of a minor child, it is unlikely that they could actually successfully move to another EU State. Unless of course, in my own opinion it could rely on the case of Chen.

By indirectly removing the child, one effectively ruins that child's FUTURE and Potential from ever being allowed to exercise their EU rights, something that the EU defends.

However, in a case involving an EU adult,that adult can go and exercise their rights if they choose to do so. However, I will point out, McCarthy did also say, that the stance applies only IF it turns out that the EU Citizen will be deprived of their EU rights.

One example, I think, where deprivation could occur, is where they do move to another eu country, but can not stay or get family reunification of non eu person if they can't for reasons that they can't be blamed for, fail to comply with Article 7 of 2004/38 EC. What then? They can only go back to the country of origin of the EU citizen. Then, it should be arguable that they treaty then applies in the same line as Zambrano.

I can assure you, that if the ECJ ruled on another issue, outside its competence in the same manner s Zambrano, such as Taxation as a poor example (as it not human) I would be angry. I already stated that if this outcome occurred in the Irish Courts on the basis of domestic law, I would not have had too much problem with it. I believe that Lobe in 2003 was unfair in that it applied to every case thereafter , even for those who were similar to fajunonu 1990 (ie long period of residence) Dimbo sorted this out. Go and read the cases before confirming that I am confused. ONE poster smaked of ignorance to those cases when they commented that I was confused when I stated it earlier.

I could not give a crap nationality or colour the dependents on the Zambrano case are. I do care however that it rewards people who came to Ireland illegally or as asylum seekers on utterly false claims. There is a difference between utterly false claims which are found to lack complete creditibility or grounds of well foundness and genuine cases where it don't meet the narrow criteria of asylum. The case also applies to hard working and honest people who came here, even before the fake boom (2003-2007) on work permits. I am sure many were also black and some were defintely Nigerian as one girl from my former IT workplace (after my stint in the department) came on that basis. I have already said that I would take the same approach, if the person was a white catholic american with long distant blood connection to Ireland.

Your predictable comment on Nigerians and black people which implies beloved does not indicate your so called better mind than others. It is rather tiresome and the more it continues, the less they will be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with one's nationality. There is nothing on these posts or elsewhere to prove a dislike to any particular nation. If you do find it, please show. Otherwise, keep your narrow view and self serving view of what beloved is, to your self

Speaking of Nigeria though, how do you think or know how Nigerians who remained in Nigeria react when they hear the false stories of persecution from claimants? I know that the Nigerian government are not impressed. How does it feel to know that people go abroad and say things that are found to be untrue. The same could be asked of other countries.

Who does Nigeria treat people of other Nationalities , eg Cameroon, whilst in Nigeria. How proud were South Africans who turned to the media in 2008 to see nationals of Zimbabwe being chased back to the boarder, some lit on fire ? see bbc. Again this question applies to other countries, which, funny enough always gets ignored. Discrimination? I , saldy, have no doubt one's own country has done similar to you at some point.

I put it to you again, you do not give a damn about this idea of reverse discrimination so long as you are ok. It is abundantly clear in your answers and your refusal to acknowledge or accept it will happen to other EU citizens who do not have children.

What do you make of the situation where, assuming you are non eu, your fellow country person can't get status even though they are married to an eu citizen eg french etc, because they are not working, self employed , student or self sufficent. yet another couple from your country who never had legal status and a weak asylum claim, might not only get status but access to work (or a chance of same) simply because they had a citizen child. will the person in the first case be rather annoyed?

I find it hilarious that now people like you are so concerned with reverse discrimination. I recall I got rebuffed and told it was irelevant during the Metock case, that it would be unfair to get rid of old regulation 3.2 as an Irish person who did not travel might not succeed in family reunification of an non Eu person under domestic law. One comedian suggested, oh there's nothing stopping him or her from going to another state via shing.

ABCDE.....? That is rich, your spelling and grammer , like mine at times would suggest that it would be better for you to follow your own advice. Is thats the best reply to can make regarding my question to you about McCarthy or your refusal to discuss the actual discrimination of other people who rely on eu law? Like Zambrano, ABCDE.... does not say much regarding how the ECJ could really justify itself in the approach it took. Don't trouble your head replying so. Your great mind will explode

Son? It is not the 1960's. Its funny, if a white person referred to a black person as son or boy, they would rightly be slanted as dearly beloved. You probably should drop that patronising tagline.One of my brother's Cork friends (alright boi) innocently learned the hard way whilst in Australia, really akward situation

As for the smart words, hardly.

Here we go again, u r moaning like a kid and when i said if u r in ur mid 20's,i was not referring to the marriage thingy,i was referring to the way u think.

Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it.

When the minors attains maturity then it can then be at the discretion of the minister if the Parents can still enjoy the right cos i know the right ceases when the minors turns Adult simple.

so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear

You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?

and if u have pro with my grammar as i said u can add that 2 ur surname

I am answer questions put by you. Considering that you show your love of goats, and forgetting that in Ireland that kind is kind of frowned upon (sheep are nicer) look who is talking. I don't see how the age of some has got anything to do with it? You clearly was trying to make another point, what was it? Assuming you are older, it really does not saying anything good about you does it? You have nothing to respond to. You would think that the older one gets the wiser they are. It would be wise to stop embarrassing yourself.

As for the way I think, excuse me again, age wise, there will be plenty of older people who will have extreme prejudices and harsher opinions than mine. You can see that on politics.ie , so age, again is irrelevant. Age has no barrier regarding an ability to understand legal concepts like EU law. You do not have to be 40 to realise that it is wrong to be economical with the truth. Even a 10 year old would understand that people who have lied about their own country give their country a few bad name abroad.

Its a shame you never gave an answer or opinion about that. Ah but sure, why bother, you can always shout dearly beloved.

"Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it."

I am glad to here you share the same view. But dropping it? There were quite a view people who have claimed or believed "strongly" that Zambrano could apply to adults. Why do people make comments when they are not willing or capable of tolerating the receipant to respond?


"so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear"

Thank you for finally being honest. I will hold you to that comment when if I see you pontificating about reverse discrimination. You then had some cheek to comment on anything that I made a comment on regarding matters not involving minor children and consider it to be irrelevant.

McCarthy also shows that a person who is static and living in their own country (ie the british citizenship element) can't rely on EU law, thus in most cases making the argument of reverse discrimination redundant. I understand for some legal circles (learned this from my sister who is in the law library), that the State might be arguing that McCarthy greatly restricts the limit of Zambrano (can't see it fly to be honest)


"You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?"

You are the one with the comments that one does not care about Zambrano on a ridiculous notion that its because I am anti Nigerian. You hardly were critical of other people's comments that what I have stated was dearly beloved. People are entitled to reply to such allegations. I am explaining the legal position of what EU law says. I have been vindicated in McCarthy regarding adults. I am pointing out facts that the Irish people rejected that the IBC's had any right to live in Ireland. I have pointed out the facts that the Irish people decided to change the laws in 2004. This is true and accurate facts, whether you like it or not. I can assure you, I know what I am saying.

[Morrisj]

Lol how old r u son?u act like u r in ur mid 20's.....haha nice move trying to drag Monife to ur side hahah u know what if Monife thinks ur whole point of view from the begining of this topic is right then u and Monife dnt really know what youse r doing or saying am been honest.

Monife or anyone else's lawyer ''bit better'' .son u must think u r d best or better than everyone,dont use smart words for me cos ur brain is still 2 low compare to mine u r nt bothered about zambrano u r bothered cos it favoured blacks from Nigeria simple.

Go read ABCD EF....that will help u to re-arrange the way u think

29 years, why? I did not realise that there was a certain age one could marry. As you know, in some cultures and countries people marry at 16 or less. In our own country, no more than 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to be married by 23 and even 17 years further. What are you really getting at?

I can't see how Monife is going to turn to my way of thinking. But, at least it is honest and accurate enough regarding her situation. As for not knowing what I am saying, maybe pick up text books on EU, in fairness to you, dated 5-10 years ago. Then you will see where I am coming from on the traditional interpretation on EU Law.

As you have acknowledged I stated "Monife or anyone else's lawyers". It was not an attempt to drag Monife to anything. She is referred to as she is the only one here that has a case before the courts. In addition, it refers to her lawyers and not herself.

Regarding Zambrano, I care that the ECJ have overstepped its remit. The treaty simple says that citizenship is a complement and not addition. The princple of subsidiarity states that the EU can not infringe where it does not have the power to do so via the Treaty. The Treaty refers goes on to talk about freemovement of people, services, capital and goods from one EU country to another. It does not provide for a situation like Zambrano. In addition, the Citizenship artilce in the Treaty refers to the fact that rules regarding citizenship is governed by secondary legislation. That legislation is the Citizens Directive 2004/38 EC. No where in that legislation does it state that people, regardless of age, can rely on EU citizenship law if they have not moved. Even the EU Commission were against Zambrano.

The Treaty itself was envoked on a humanitarian basis in exceptional case as seen in Chen and Zambrano. The reason can be best explained by the AG in McCarthy when he distinguished a case involving a minor child and a case involving adults. The ECJ in that case hung onto this by stating that in the case of a minor child, it is unlikely that they could actually successfully move to another EU State. Unless of course, in my own opinion it could rely on the case of Chen.

By indirectly removing the child, one effectively ruins that child's FUTURE and Potential from ever being allowed to exercise their EU rights, something that the EU defends.

However, in a case involving an EU adult,that adult can go and exercise their rights if they choose to do so. However, I will point out, McCarthy did also say, that the stance applies only IF it turns out that the EU Citizen will be deprived of their EU rights.

One example, I think, where deprivation could occur, is where they do move to another eu country, but can not stay or get family reunification of non eu person if they can't for reasons that they can't be blamed for, fail to comply with Article 7 of 2004/38 EC. What then? They can only go back to the country of origin of the EU citizen. Then, it should be arguable that they treaty then applies in the same line as Zambrano.

I can assure you, that if the ECJ ruled on another issue, outside its competence in the same manner s Zambrano, such as Taxation as a poor example (as it not human) I would be angry. I already stated that if this outcome occurred in the Irish Courts on the basis of domestic law, I would not have had too much problem with it. I believe that Lobe in 2003 was unfair in that it applied to every case thereafter , even for those who were similar to fajunonu 1990 (ie long period of residence) Dimbo sorted this out. Go and read the cases before confirming that I am confused. ONE poster smaked of ignorance to those cases when they commented that I was confused when I stated it earlier.

I could not give a crap nationality or colour the dependents on the Zambrano case are. I do care however that it rewards people who came to Ireland illegally or as asylum seekers on utterly false claims. There is a difference between utterly false claims which are found to lack complete creditibility or grounds of well foundness and genuine cases where it don't meet the narrow criteria of asylum. The case also applies to hard working and honest people who came here, even before the fake boom (2003-2007) on work permits. I am sure many were also black and some were defintely Nigerian as one girl from my former IT workplace (after my stint in the department) came on that basis. I have already said that I would take the same approach, if the person was a white catholic american with long distant blood connection to Ireland.

Your predictable comment on Nigerians and black people which implies beloved does not indicate your so called better mind than others. It is rather tiresome and the more it continues, the less they will be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with one's nationality. There is nothing on these posts or elsewhere to prove a dislike to any particular nation. If you do find it, please show. Otherwise, keep your narrow view and self serving view of what beloved is, to your self

Speaking of Nigeria though, how do you think or know how Nigerians who remained in Nigeria react when they hear the false stories of persecution from claimants? I know that the Nigerian government are not impressed. How does it feel to know that people go abroad and say things that are found to be untrue. The same could be asked of other countries.

Who does Nigeria treat people of other Nationalities , eg Cameroon, whilst in Nigeria. How proud were South Africans who turned to the media in 2008 to see nationals of Zimbabwe being chased back to the boarder, some lit on fire ? see bbc. Again this question applies to other countries, which, funny enough always gets ignored. Discrimination? I , saldy, have no doubt one's own country has done similar to you at some point.

I put it to you again, you do not give a damn about this idea of reverse discrimination so long as you are ok. It is abundantly clear in your answers and your refusal to acknowledge or accept it will happen to other EU citizens who do not have children.

What do you make of the situation where, assuming you are non eu, your fellow country person can't get status even though they are married to an eu citizen eg french etc, because they are not working, self employed , student or self sufficent. yet another couple from your country who never had legal status and a weak asylum claim, might not only get status but access to work (or a chance of same) simply because they had a citizen child. will the person in the first case be rather annoyed?

I find it hilarious that now people like you are so concerned with reverse discrimination. I recall I got rebuffed and told it was irelevant during the Metock case, that it would be unfair to get rid of old regulation 3.2 as an Irish person who did not travel might not succeed in family reunification of an non Eu person under domestic law. One comedian suggested, oh there's nothing stopping him or her from going to another state via shing.

ABCDE.....? That is rich, your spelling and grammer , like mine at times would suggest that it would be better for you to follow your own advice. Is thats the best reply to can make regarding my question to you about McCarthy or your refusal to discuss the actual discrimination of other people who rely on eu law? Like Zambrano, ABCDE.... does not say much regarding how the ECJ could really justify itself in the approach it took. Don't trouble your head replying so. Your great mind will explode

Son? It is not the 1960's. Its funny, if a white person referred to a black person as son or boy, they would rightly be slanted as dearly beloved. You probably should drop that patronising tagline.One of my brother's Cork friends (alright boi) innocently learned the hard way whilst in Australia, really akward situation

As for the smart words, hardly.

Here we go again, u r moaning like a kid and when i said if u r in ur mid 20's,i was not referring to the marriage thingy,i was referring to the way u think.

Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it.

When the minors attains maturity then it can then be at the discretion of the minister if the Parents can still enjoy the right cos i know the right ceases when the minors turns Adult simple.

so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear

You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?

and if u have pro with my grammar as i said u can add that 2 ur surname

I am answer questions put by you. Considering that you show your love of goats, and forgetting that in Ireland that kind is kind of frowned upon (sheep are nicer) look who is talking. I don't see how the age of some has got anything to do with it? You clearly was trying to make another point, what was it? Assuming you are older, it really does not saying anything good about you does it? You have nothing to respond to. You would think that the older one gets the wiser they are. It would be wise to stop embarrassing yourself.

As for the way I think, excuse me again, age wise, there will be plenty of older people who will have extreme prejudices and harsher opinions than mine. You can see that on politics.ie , so age, again is irrelevant. Age has no barrier regarding an ability to understand legal concepts like EU law. You do not have to be 40 to realise that it is wrong to be economical with the truth. Even a 10 year old would understand that people who have lied about their own country give their country a few bad name abroad.

Its a shame you never gave an answer or opinion about that. Ah but sure, why bother, you can always shout dearly beloved.

"Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it."

I am glad to here you share the same view. But dropping it? There were quite a view people who have claimed or believed "strongly" that Zambrano could apply to adults. Why do people make comments when they are not willing or capable of tolerating the receipant to respond?


"so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear"

Thank you for finally being honest. I will hold you to that comment when if I see you pontificating about reverse discrimination. You then had some cheek to comment on anything that I made a comment on regarding matters not involving minor children and consider it to be irrelevant.

McCarthy also shows that a person who is static and living in their own country (ie the british citizenship element) can't rely on EU law, thus in most cases making the argument of reverse discrimination redundant. I understand for some legal circles (learned this from my sister who is in the law library), that the State might be arguing that McCarthy greatly restricts the limit of Zambrano (can't see it fly to be honest)


"You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?"

You are the one with the comments that one does not care about Zambrano on a ridiculous notion that its because I am anti Nigerian. You hardly were critical of other people's comments that what I have stated was dearly beloved. People are entitled to reply to such allegations. I am explaining the legal position of what EU law says. I have been vindicated in McCarthy regarding adults. I am pointing out facts that the Irish people rejected that the IBC's had any right to live in Ireland. I have pointed out the facts that the Irish people decided to change the laws in 2004. This is true and accurate facts, whether you like it or not. I can assure you, I know what I am saying.

Theres no point arguing with a fool and sorry 2 disappoint u, I just turned 20 doh

[walrusgumble]

29 years, why? I did not realise that there was a certain age one could marry. As you know, in some cultures and countries people marry at 16 or less. In our own country, no more than 20 years ago, it was not uncommon to be married by 23 and even 17 years further. What are you really getting at?

I can't see how Monife is going to turn to my way of thinking. But, at least it is honest and accurate enough regarding her situation. As for not knowing what I am saying, maybe pick up text books on EU, in fairness to you, dated 5-10 years ago. Then you will see where I am coming from on the traditional interpretation on EU Law.

As you have acknowledged I stated "Monife or anyone else's lawyers". It was not an attempt to drag Monife to anything. She is referred to as she is the only one here that has a case before the courts. In addition, it refers to her lawyers and not herself.

Regarding Zambrano, I care that the ECJ have overstepped its remit. The treaty simple says that citizenship is a complement and not addition. The princple of subsidiarity states that the EU can not infringe where it does not have the power to do so via the Treaty. The Treaty refers goes on to talk about freemovement of people, services, capital and goods from one EU country to another. It does not provide for a situation like Zambrano. In addition, the Citizenship artilce in the Treaty refers to the fact that rules regarding citizenship is governed by secondary legislation. That legislation is the Citizens Directive 2004/38 EC. No where in that legislation does it state that people, regardless of age, can rely on EU citizenship law if they have not moved. Even the EU Commission were against Zambrano.

The Treaty itself was envoked on a humanitarian basis in exceptional case as seen in Chen and Zambrano. The reason can be best explained by the AG in McCarthy when he distinguished a case involving a minor child and a case involving adults. The ECJ in that case hung onto this by stating that in the case of a minor child, it is unlikely that they could actually successfully move to another EU State. Unless of course, in my own opinion it could rely on the case of Chen.

By indirectly removing the child, one effectively ruins that child's FUTURE and Potential from ever being allowed to exercise their EU rights, something that the EU defends.

However, in a case involving an EU adult,that adult can go and exercise their rights if they choose to do so. However, I will point out, McCarthy did also say, that the stance applies only IF it turns out that the EU Citizen will be deprived of their EU rights.

One example, I think, where deprivation could occur, is where they do move to another eu country, but can not stay or get family reunification of non eu person if they can't for reasons that they can't be blamed for, fail to comply with Article 7 of 2004/38 EC. What then? They can only go back to the country of origin of the EU citizen. Then, it should be arguable that they treaty then applies in the same line as Zambrano.

I can assure you, that if the ECJ ruled on another issue, outside its competence in the same manner s Zambrano, such as Taxation as a poor example (as it not human) I would be angry. I already stated that if this outcome occurred in the Irish Courts on the basis of domestic law, I would not have had too much problem with it. I believe that Lobe in 2003 was unfair in that it applied to every case thereafter , even for those who were similar to fajunonu 1990 (ie long period of residence) Dimbo sorted this out. Go and read the cases before confirming that I am confused. ONE poster smaked of ignorance to those cases when they commented that I was confused when I stated it earlier.

I could not give a crap nationality or colour the dependents on the Zambrano case are. I do care however that it rewards people who came to Ireland illegally or as asylum seekers on utterly false claims. There is a difference between utterly false claims which are found to lack complete creditibility or grounds of well foundness and genuine cases where it don't meet the narrow criteria of asylum. The case also applies to hard working and honest people who came here, even before the fake boom (2003-2007) on work permits. I am sure many were also black and some were defintely Nigerian as one girl from my former IT workplace (after my stint in the department) came on that basis. I have already said that I would take the same approach, if the person was a white catholic american with long distant blood connection to Ireland.

Your predictable comment on Nigerians and black people which implies beloved does not indicate your so called better mind than others. It is rather tiresome and the more it continues, the less they will be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with one's nationality. There is nothing on these posts or elsewhere to prove a dislike to any particular nation. If you do find it, please show. Otherwise, keep your narrow view and self serving view of what beloved is, to your self

Speaking of Nigeria though, how do you think or know how Nigerians who remained in Nigeria react when they hear the false stories of persecution from claimants? I know that the Nigerian government are not impressed. How does it feel to know that people go abroad and say things that are found to be untrue. The same could be asked of other countries.

Who does Nigeria treat people of other Nationalities , eg Cameroon, whilst in Nigeria. How proud were South Africans who turned to the media in 2008 to see nationals of Zimbabwe being chased back to the boarder, some lit on fire ? see bbc. Again this question applies to other countries, which, funny enough always gets ignored. Discrimination? I , saldy, have no doubt one's own country has done similar to you at some point.

I put it to you again, you do not give a damn about this idea of reverse discrimination so long as you are ok. It is abundantly clear in your answers and your refusal to acknowledge or accept it will happen to other EU citizens who do not have children.

What do you make of the situation where, assuming you are non eu, your fellow country person can't get status even though they are married to an eu citizen eg french etc, because they are not working, self employed , student or self sufficent. yet another couple from your country who never had legal status and a weak asylum claim, might not only get status but access to work (or a chance of same) simply because they had a citizen child. will the person in the first case be rather annoyed?

I find it hilarious that now people like you are so concerned with reverse discrimination. I recall I got rebuffed and told it was irelevant during the Metock case, that it would be unfair to get rid of old regulation 3.2 as an Irish person who did not travel might not succeed in family reunification of an non Eu person under domestic law. One comedian suggested, oh there's nothing stopping him or her from going to another state via shing.

ABCDE.....? That is rich, your spelling and grammer , like mine at times would suggest that it would be better for you to follow your own advice. Is thats the best reply to can make regarding my question to you about McCarthy or your refusal to discuss the actual discrimination of other people who rely on eu law? Like Zambrano, ABCDE.... does not say much regarding how the ECJ could really justify itself in the approach it took. Don't trouble your head replying so. Your great mind will explode

Son? It is not the 1960's. Its funny, if a white person referred to a black person as son or boy, they would rightly be slanted as dearly beloved. You probably should drop that patronising tagline.One of my brother's Cork friends (alright boi) innocently learned the hard way whilst in Australia, really akward situation

As for the smart words, hardly.

Here we go again, u r moaning like a kid and when i said if u r in ur mid 20's,i was not referring to the marriage thingy,i was referring to the way u think.

Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it.

When the minors attains maturity then it can then be at the discretion of the minister if the Parents can still enjoy the right cos i know the right ceases when the minors turns Adult simple.

so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear

You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?

and if u have pro with my grammar as i said u can add that 2 ur surname

I am answer questions put by you. Considering that you show your love of goats, and forgetting that in Ireland that kind is kind of frowned upon (sheep are nicer) look who is talking. I don't see how the age of some has got anything to do with it? You clearly was trying to make another point, what was it? Assuming you are older, it really does not saying anything good about you does it? You have nothing to respond to. You would think that the older one gets the wiser they are. It would be wise to stop embarrassing yourself.

As for the way I think, excuse me again, age wise, there will be plenty of older people who will have extreme prejudices and harsher opinions than mine. You can see that on politics.ie , so age, again is irrelevant. Age has no barrier regarding an ability to understand legal concepts like EU law. You do not have to be 40 to realise that it is wrong to be economical with the truth. Even a 10 year old would understand that people who have lied about their own country give their country a few bad name abroad.

Its a shame you never gave an answer or opinion about that. Ah but sure, why bother, you can always shout dearly beloved.

"Anyways minor children cant move to exercise their right so in order for them to do so they indeed need their parents,Adults can move.No discrimination there btw Eu minors and Adults so drop it."

I am glad to here you share the same view. But dropping it? There were quite a view people who have claimed or believed "strongly" that Zambrano could apply to adults. Why do people make comments when they are not willing or capable of tolerating the receipant to respond?


"so tell me what exactly u r nt understanding here and listen 2 be honest i dnt give a fffffffffffffffff. abt Macarthy's case cos to be honest with u, Eu citizens that r adult r suppose to move before they can acquire such right so there was no need for the Mc-carthy's case in the 1st place because it's clear"

Thank you for finally being honest. I will hold you to that comment when if I see you pontificating about reverse discrimination. You then had some cheek to comment on anything that I made a comment on regarding matters not involving minor children and consider it to be irrelevant.

McCarthy also shows that a person who is static and living in their own country (ie the british citizenship element) can't rely on EU law, thus in most cases making the argument of reverse discrimination redundant. I understand for some legal circles (learned this from my sister who is in the law library), that the State might be arguing that McCarthy greatly restricts the limit of Zambrano (can't see it fly to be honest)


"You know what say what u wanna say but just dnt point out my name in anything u say cos that pisses me off cos u really dnt know what u r preaching or narrating or should i say explaining?"

You are the one with the comments that one does not care about Zambrano on a ridiculous notion that its because I am anti Nigerian. You hardly were critical of other people's comments that what I have stated was dearly beloved. People are entitled to reply to such allegations. I am explaining the legal position of what EU law says. I have been vindicated in McCarthy regarding adults. I am pointing out facts that the Irish people rejected that the IBC's had any right to live in Ireland. I have pointed out the facts that the Irish people decided to change the laws in 2004. This is true and accurate facts, whether you like it or not. I can assure you, I know what I am saying.

Theres no point arguing with a fool and sorry 2 disappoint u, I just turned 20 doh

Go and learn to hold a discussion , a point of view for longer than 5 minutes without reverting to goats and playschool tactics. Go and actually know the area that you are talking about.

I am not disappointed, it was getting sad seeing you make a tit of yourself. So flocking a goat is the same as kissing one, is it?

Go on child, move on.

[IRISH PHAROE]

just to let you know that my wife changed her stamp3 into stamp 4
the immigration officer (was a very nice lady(strange) in our local immigration office) asked for the children passports and birth certificates also my wife passport and her GNIB and 2 proofs of address.
also the officer asked for letters from the GP or the schools to show that my children are currently living in Ireland and my wife is minding them (she has a role in their lifes)
my wife got a period for 3 years from today
good luck to you all

[9jeirean]

just to let you know that my wife changed her stamp3 into stamp 4
the immigration officer (was a very nice lady(strange) in our local immigration office) asked for the children passports and birth certificates also my wife passport and her GNIB and 2 proofs of address.
also the officer asked for letters from the GP or the schools to show that my children are currently living in Ireland and my wife is minding them (she has a role in their lifes)
my wife got a period for 3 years from today
good luck to you all

Thanks for the USEFUL update Irish Pharoe, great to see Zambrano's been implemented without a glitch. God bless Alan Shatter!

9jeirean

[Obie]

Alan Shatter seems like one of Ireland's best ever Justice minister. His presence is certainly welcomed, in the midst of the utter mess that was taking place at the department during the time of his predecessor.

At less the department will start running like a government in a civilised nation.

Respect to Alan. I hope he keep up the good job.

[9jeirean]

Alan Shatter seems like one of Ireland's best ever Justice minister. His presence is certainly welcomed, in the midst of the utter mess that was taking place at the department during the time of his predecessor.

At less the department will start running like a government in a civilised nation.

Respect to Alan. I hope he keep up the good job.

Yes, there has been noticeable improvement in most areas of the DoJ since he came in and he hasn't even been there for 100 days yet. The backlog is gradually and progressively been cleared for naturalization applicants, LTR is now taking less than 10 months to process and of course, Zambrano is now being implemented. The most important of all is to see to the passage of the immigration bill through the Dail so all of the current schemes running on ad-hoc can be put on legislative footing. It goes to show how much can be achieved by a simple change of mind set.

As we say down at my neck of the woods - Is maith an fear Alan


9jeirean

[walrusgumble]

Alan Shatter seems like one of Ireland's best ever Justice minister. His presence is certainly welcomed, in the midst of the utter mess that was taking place at the department during the time of his predecessor.

At less the department will start running like a government in a civilised nation.

Respect to Alan. I hope he keep up the good job.

Yes, there has been noticeable improvement in most areas of the DoJ since he came in and he hasn't even been there for 100 days yet. The backlog is gradually and progressively been cleared for naturalization applicants, LTR is now taking less than 10 months to process and of course, Zambrano is now being implemented. The most important of all is to see to the passage of the immigration bill through the Dail so all of the current schemes running on ad-hoc can be put on legislative footing. It goes to show how much can be achieved by a simple change of mind set.

As we say down at my neck of the woods - Is maith an fear Alan


9jeirean

Barely 100 days and he is the one of the best Minister for Justice. Hilarious to comments seeing that you are no more than 10 years here.

I don't see much difference in the other areas of his department, such as dealing with the Gardaí and prisons. Sure there are still backlogs in long term residency and citizenship applications.

How many of the cases that got status via Zambrano are cases NOT involving Stamp 1, 2 or 3's? Sure its easy to make decisions on them

[Obie]

Walrusgrumble for goodness sake stop bashing this man for no reason. Tumbs up for him. He is working on turning around a department, that for many years has been a symbol of shame and embarassment to the Irish state, through their incompetence and poor quality of decision and services. He has come up some innovative reforms to the irish visa system, which would improve the tourism industry and benefit Ireland's battered economy.

You state he is anti- palestinian and pro- zionist, which got me a bit concerned. Having read the party's foreign policy, which he would have to support if he is a member of it, and to which he would have played a part in the drafting, i was unable to find any anti palestinian sentiment.

You might prefer the old status quo, backward, retrograde government and policies, but as a young and progressive man i am enjoying this refreshing and progressive atmosphere that Mr Shatters has presided over.

I hope Mr Ahern never sees the reigns of power, at least in my life time. He was a very ruthless, bitter and zenophobic old fool.

[fatty patty]

And do you know the funny thing is that his predecessors (very good at creating quangos and jobs for the lads) have created department of integration. Instead spending more time/money on beleagured INIS/GNIB Mr. Ahern/McDowell & Co. went about on spending spree willy nilly. Atleast Minister Shatter is not spending any more of tax payer's money (if there is any left) and rather trying to get the best out by implying best practices.

Very valid point that the successful zambrano cases are stamp 1/2/3 etc and yet we have to see any tricky one but instead of going about challenging in courts like his predecessors he has seen this as an opportunity to end all that. One thing he is good at is letting people know without any fear what he thinks and what needed doing most recent example is his addressing in garda conference where he turned around and said that garda reserve are here to stay whereas "real" garda up in arms asked for the "mollycuddled" garda reserves to be scrapped.

Ok so what if he is pro Israeli and gets emotionally involved but there are many others in the party who are passionate about the palestenians, this is the beauty of democracy. It doesnt mean that the man is a tool, he is class give credit where due.

[9jeirean]

Barely 100 days and he is the one of the best Minister for Justice. Hilarious to comments seeing that you are no more than 10 years here.
.................................................

You couldn't resist that one could you?

Listen up, how long I or anyone for that matter has been here is no business of your idle self, so cut that crap and now! Alan Shatter is doing a great job and we are delighted about it. If you are not happy about that, you can get yourself a pack of Tayto and choke on it.

In case you missed it, this forum is an immigration forum. If you have issues re prisons or the price of a pint of larger take it elsewhere. When people whose lives are impacted on a daily basis by the work of the DoJ state their reservations about the immigration experience in Ireland here on the forum, you have a problem with it, when people also chose to acknowledge when a good work is being done (a rare feat) you come around with your pathetic little moan. You've really got a problem you know? Your problem is not the forum or people who share info here, your problem is you, with your deep seated insecurity; go deal with it! This forum isn't gonna cure your paranoia, it will only make it worse. Get off the damn computer and seek a therapist dude.

Fada beo Alan. Coimeád suas an fear dea-obair mhaith

9jeirean

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgrumble for goodness sake stop bashing this man for no reason. Tumbs up for him. He is working on turning around a department, that for many years has been a symbol of shame and embarassment to the Irish state, through their incompetence and poor quality of decision and services. He has come up some innovative reforms to the irish visa system, which would improve the tourism industry and benefit Ireland's battered economy.

You state he is anti- palestinian and pro- zionist, which got me a bit concerned. Having read the party's foreign policy, which he would have to support if he is a member of it, and to which he would have played a part in the drafting, i was unable to find any anti palestinian sentiment.

You might prefer the old status quo, backward, retrograde government and policies, but as a young and progressive man i am enjoying this refreshing and progressive atmosphere that Mr Shatters has presided over.

I hope Mr Ahern never sees the reigns of power, at least in my life time. He was a very ruthless, bitter and zenophobic old fool.

The man , as in Shatter? I am not bashing him at all. I have a lot of respect for him.

I am commenting on how some people could possibly make ANY comment about the performance of the Minister or any Minister so far. I am pointing out that I would not be surprised that in 6 months 12 months time there will be people like 9 Eireann who will not be happy with a particular immigration stance and the idiots on the boards will drag Shatter into the same shade as other "corrupt" justice Ministers. If it does occur, and either of ye partake in it, I will remind ye of these comments.

Ahern is a political hasbeen, he is finished. You will not need to worry about him.

What is zenophobic about immigration control? Every country has them. THe ECHR has in the past allowed for spouses of a national of the EU (when its an internal matter) to be deported. What is dearly beloved about pointing out that there are loopholes in the law or any law?

The department of justice, for most IRISH people, would not have been the main office of embarrassment and shame. You should not take on the mantle of attempting to speak for Irish people.

I assure you, Departments such as the Department of the Taoiseach and Finance take some beating. As for the visa issue,well, had most of the dependents on Zambrano actually came in this way, there would not be too many complaints. We have all the help we need with our neighbours in the EU. Even the EU people are looking, temporarily into their beloved Schegen Scheme. Its confirmed contracts from business' in places like China that are needed first, not some tourist visa to take a trip to see the Blaraney stone. Then they can get business visas, which they will easily obtain.

If you genuinely think the visas are going to help the tourist economy then you are naive. What will first help the tourist economy are clean and safe streets, cheaper and competitive prices for food and accomodation and schemes that have more than just about drinking. A new and exceptional reason to actually come here. Horse before the chart.

"You state he is anti- palestinian and pro- zionist, which got me a bit concerned. Having read the party's foreign policy, which he would have to support if he is a member of it, and to which he would have played a part in the drafting, i was unable to find any anti palestinian sentiment"

Please do not pretend to be an expert or knowledgable on Irish politics. Read the Dáil Debates and not political party Propaganda. Actually turn on the radion when this issue is on and you will hear him scream and refuse discussion to be allowed. It happened as recent as the Goldburg REport for the UN. Google his name but note the sources, be careful, as the left wing groups have their own agenda.


"You might prefer the old status quo, backward, retrograde government and policies, but as a young and progressive man i am enjoying this refreshing and progressive atmosphere that Mr Shatters has presided over."

Yes,flawed claims of asylum get rewarded, that is progressive alright. 100 days have barely gone, its a bit too early.

In 2007 Enda Kenny campagined for an actual immigration minister. THey lost (for other reasons of course) Fianna Fail brought in an "integration" minister. Yet, despite being in the opposition, Fine Gael did not take the lead and set up a shadow position strictly on Immigration (adding Integration) Why?. Then they put someone (Dennis Naughten) into the integration position, who was better suited to deal with transport and farmers.

http://www.metroeireann.com/article/wil ... stand,1697

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/re ... 09345.html
(seems more concernec with saving money than "human rights")


Shatter should be good, but Jesus you are making Shatter and his pals sound like some JFK's . Hillarious.

Still, I ask, with the exception of the obvious cases, Stamp 1-3's, how many other cases have got an answer. I wager, a big fat 0. Let us see how many have been decided by July, shall we. Will he plough ahead, instead of allowing the court procudures take its course. If there are decisions by then, well then, fair point to you.

Metro Eireann did not seem too happy with FG's election opinion on immigration this year
http://metroeireann.com/article/what-wi ... -for-,2598

[walrusgumble]

And do you know the funny thing is that his predecessors (very good at creating quangos and jobs for the lads) have created department of integration. Instead spending more time/money on beleagured INIS/GNIB Mr. Ahern/McDowell & Co. went about on spending spree willy nilly. Atleast Minister Shatter is not spending any more of tax payer's money (if there is any left) and rather trying to get the best out by implying best practices.

Very valid point that the successful zambrano cases are stamp 1/2/3 etc and yet we have to see any tricky one but instead of going about challenging in courts like his predecessors he has seen this as an opportunity to end all that. One thing he is good at is letting people know without any fear what he thinks and what needed doing most recent example is his addressing in garda conference where he turned around and said that garda reserve are here to stay whereas "real" garda up in arms asked for the "mollycuddled" garda reserves to be scrapped.

Ok so what if he is pro Israeli and gets emotionally involved but there are many others in the party who are passionate about the palestenians, this is the beauty of democracy. It doesnt mean that the man is a tool, he is class give credit where due.

Fine Gael and Labour are no better in the quango creation department either. Senand Eireann is a fine example, despite Enda's promises on that. THat is the nature of Irish politics.

You realise that Fine Gael would have done things quite similar to that of Fianna Fáil during the boom - albeit less corruptly.

Shatter is good, alright, in the communication front. He had a very good election campaign for the 2007 elections. But just remember, he said alot of what he said whilst in opposition. How many times does the word U turn crop up? As for the Garda thing, give it 3 years, we will see what happens. This reserve lark is nonsense and he knows it.

[fatty patty]

Seanad is not a quango, FG promised to abolish it but in the end settled with lesser candidates. It is not easy to get rid of Seanad a lot of work required you probably know better. As far as u turns that is the baggage of politics comes with every politician no party (not that i know off) got their manifestos fully implemented in their first term but i see alot of positives coming out from FG already. Only time will tell.

[walrusgumble]

Seanad is not a quango, FG promised to abolish it but in the end settled with lesser candidates. It is not easy to get rid of Seanad a lot of work required you probably know better. As far as u turns that is the baggage of politics comes with every politician no party (not that i know off) got their manifestos fully implemented in their first term but i see alot of positives coming out from FG already. Only time will tell.

Its not as hard as you think. Draft a New Constitution as the current one was written in the 1930's. Or simply bring out a referedum on the required articles - some genuis in the High Court would be capable of drafting the required bills - Judge Hogan for instance.. REgardless of the result, the Senand would not be abolished immediately. Its a cop out of an excuse you have made. Its not impossible.



Senand most certaintly is a quango, in the political sense. Granted, it is not suppose to be a jobs for the boys centre, but its, sadly irrelevant and powerless. The Taoiseach has a choice to put in any 11 people he chooses. The people elected are people who were either kicked out of the Dáil but want to return in the next election or people who have future hopes of going to the Dáíl.

THe Senand historically was hoped to put from from various backgrounds and vocational interests groups in. Even William Butler Yeats was made a Senator. Now, its no different to the Dáil, where party discpline rules the views of the politicans. I do not advocate for the abolishment by the way, I advocate for an implementation of the previous Law REform report.

God bless ye, though, for ye have little idea what a government under FG is like. (sadly, they always have to come in after FF and clean up, never given a chance during boom time, so maybe its unfair) Enda promised the Referendum, where is it , and when. If he is so convinced of abolishing it, he should have declared a referendum within the 100 days as oppose to going through expenses of the Seanad elections, which FG pumped money into. Why didn't FG refrain from canvassing.


Enda never really put much tought into the abolishment of the Seanad. His own party are not fully in support of it. He now has a Seanad majority, some of whom may increase the parties Dail Seats in the Future. Why would he waste political advantage? Lets come back in 7 months time before making any comment on the new government. (we have been promised so much by politicans in the past 20 years, our outcome is unccnngily similar to that in Great Britian, so you should forgive citizens for being sceptical)