Parent Of Irish Born.

[angelcountry]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

[angelcountry]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

PS: I have been working all my life and growing up my citizen children, i did not collect social welfare, please help.

[walrusgumble]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

Citizenship? There is no special rules for eligibility on citizenship simply by being a parent. One still needs to get 5 years residence first.

write to them, quoting your 68 number.

I am really convinced that Shatter's boasting about so many decisions are on a false basis ie those decisions were due anyway, as they were pending for the already estimated 23-24 months. It would have been better if he disclosed how many of those 5000 applications were actually from applications made in late 2009 - 2010

Are you confusing citizenship with residency ?

If you are not confusing it, and you are on a stamp 1, you should be able to register for stamp 4 by going to the gardaí on the basis of Zambrano. That would keep you safe while your citizenship application is pending.

[angelcountry]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

Citizenship? There is no special rules for eligibility on citizenship simply by being a parent. One still needs to get 5 years residence first.

write to them, quoting your 68 number.

I am really convinced that Shatter's boasting about so many decisions are on a false basis ie those decisions were due anyway, as they were pending for the already estimated 23-24 months. It would have been better if he disclosed how many of those 5000 applications were actually from applications made in late 2009 - 2010

Are you confusing citizenship with residency ?

If you are not confusing it, and you are on a stamp 1, you should be able to register for stamp 4 by going to the gardaí on the basis of Zambrano. That would keep you safe while your citizenship application is pending.

Your argument is based on the contrary which is a matter of principle but am actually used to those derailing tactical move, however, i do agree with you on the subject residency reckonable of five years and one year continuous residency before application, the basis of my topic is that, how what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

[fatty patty]

Unfortunatley INIS dont publish what you looking for unlike in UK/Netherlands/Canada etc they provide a breakdown of naturalisations by country, criteria etc. and also refusals etc.

Finding out this info is like bleeding the stone, what Minister Shatter has introduced now rejigging the website, hiring more staff and promising to make process efficient is a massive step in Irish terms (even though its poxy basic stuff all across western world and here govt boast that be jaysus its a massive thing).

Understand your frustration that you are waiting since 07 for an answer but now i am hypothetically speaking its not official line and open for corrections...Permit holders are the most vulnerable if compared to IBC/EU/Irish spouses/Asylum cases, why because firstly permit holders are in employment where they dont know if company closes down or make them redundant will another firm take them in (most firms dont because of the lengthy process involved) also they seldom make benefit claims because again being refused for citizenship and even permit renewal and also they hold higher qualification and skills.

Now comparing to spouses/IBC/asylum main thing going for them is their status because they can walk in to Immigration and get their stamps extended either free of cost and if not free of cost then without much hassle and can apply citizenship quicker then permit holders exception of IBC. (again i am sure there will be very well qualified spouses/IBC/asylum etc are around) so policy maker is looking at this thinking if they are being demanding then they are whinging and let them whinge. No point taking your frustration out on users in citizenship timeline thread its not their fault they also waited like everyone else but its this system's fault that boasts to be chronological but actually is illogical.

[angelcountry]

Unfortunatley INIS dont publish what you looking for unlike in UK/Netherlands/Canada etc they provide a breakdown of naturalisations by country, criteria etc. and also refusals etc.

Finding out this info is like bleeding the stone, what Minister Shatter has introduced now rejigging the website, hiring more staff and promising to make process efficient is a massive step in Irish terms (even though its poxy basic stuff all across western world and here govt boast that be jaysus its a massive thing).

Understand your frustration that you are waiting since 07 for an answer but now i am hypothetically speaking its not official line and open for corrections...Permit holders are the most vulnerable if compared to IBC/EU/Irish spouses/Asylum cases, why because firstly permit holders are in employment where they dont know if company closes down or make them redundant will another firm take them in (most firms dont because of the lengthy process involved) also they seldom make benefit claims because again being refused for citizenship and even permit renewal and also they hold higher qualification and skills.

Now comparing to spouses/IBC/asylum main thing going for them is their status because they can walk in to Immigration and get their stamps extended either free of cost and if not free of cost then without much hassle and can apply citizenship quicker then permit holders exception of IBC. (again i am sure there will be very well qualified spouses/IBC/asylum etc are around) so policy maker is looking at this thinking if they are being demanding then they are whinging and let them whinge. No point taking your frustration out on users in citizenship timeline thread its not their fault they also waited like everyone else but its this system's fault that boasts to be chronological but actually is illogical.

Well some of your explanation did make of bit of res-judicate case scenarios where status is absolute. However, your notion on people with status or intertwined Ibc/asylum whatever you call it walking into social welfare claiming benefit and affecting their renewal or naturalization process is in fact subject to judicial review in any way, but if you take a look on the new citizenship application the present government has simplify it by making sure that, every applicant explain why they are receiving such social credit when Chen case has already set the test of ''unreasonable burden'' usurping the social credit to refuse is in fact fell short of a legitimate reasons when an house wife is granted recently.

[walrusgumble]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

Citizenship? There is no special rules for eligibility on citizenship simply by being a parent. One still needs to get 5 years residence first.

write to them, quoting your 68 number.

I am really convinced that Shatter's boasting about so many decisions are on a false basis ie those decisions were due anyway, as they were pending for the already estimated 23-24 months. It would have been better if he disclosed how many of those 5000 applications were actually from applications made in late 2009 - 2010

Are you confusing citizenship with residency ?

If you are not confusing it, and you are on a stamp 1, you should be able to register for stamp 4 by going to the gardaí on the basis of Zambrano. That would keep you safe while your citizenship application is pending.

Your argument is based on the contrary which is a matter of principle but am actually used to those derailing tactical move, however, i do agree with you on the subject residency reckonable of five years and one year continuous residency before application, the basis of my topic is that, how what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

Based on the contrary on a matter of principle? I am a bit lost on what you are on about, please clarify. Derailing? Proof of argument based on the contrary? Know adult who has got citizenship after 1 year?


You made an assumption / or asked would you you would get a decision with in 6 months. I said that you should not bank on that, yet. I explained why and in anticaption of those who are not good at rationale thinking who likely jump on at say its crap. (because, is seems that no one is allowed to criticise shatter here)

Your basing your argument that I am savagely attacking Shatter unfairly. I am simply being critical, and some of ye will later see, that I may be correct when we will see new threads - oh the has made a u turn. I made other critical comments on his statement about zambrano, which i was attacked and yet, low and behold, not only were there poster making the same arguments as me later but i say one or two people (sheep if they were regular contributors here,) who stated that he has made a u turn.

You just simply don't like the answer given to you. I am sorry, but for now, that is what is going on.
Maybe you know someone who got a decision after 1 year waiting? (exclude those on applications for minors)

he is a politican and all politicans are prone to make such statements. so its nothing personal on him. Have you any proof to back you up or even, stories of one fine contributor would say. As far as I see it, word is from people in Tipperary, is that they are still sending out letters to new applicants telling them that the 26 months is still ongoing BUT the plans to get the 6 month scheme will not be in place for a while. I am also of the understanding that they are now looking at cases from the end of 2009. I would add though, he is truely making an effort, despite the limited resources and lazy people in the department.

Seriously, if you are awaiting since 2007, you should now be talking to a lawyer. Have you delayed in responding to any requests for information? Have you always resided in the place that you lived in?

[angelcountry]

Did anyone know the figures of the parents of Irish/European citizen children that has been granted Irish citizenship recently, because i noted the fast tracking rate going on now with the work permit holder, should i change my stamp 4 to stamp 5 so that, i could be called for the fast track ceremony going on now ?

I applied in 2007, i still don't receive any call for citizenship ceremony up till now, somebody help me, should i call them or what ?

Citizenship? There is no special rules for eligibility on citizenship simply by being a parent. One still needs to get 5 years residence first.

write to them, quoting your 68 number.

I am really convinced that Shatter's boasting about so many decisions are on a false basis ie those decisions were due anyway, as they were pending for the already estimated 23-24 months. It would have been better if he disclosed how many of those 5000 applications were actually from applications made in late 2009 - 2010

Are you confusing citizenship with residency ?

If you are not confusing it, and you are on a stamp 1, you should be able to register for stamp 4 by going to the gardaí on the basis of Zambrano. That would keep you safe while your citizenship application is pending.

Your argument is based on the contrary which is a matter of principle but am actually used to those derailing tactical move, however, i do agree with you on the subject residency reckonable of five years and one year continuous residency before application, the basis of my topic is that, how what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

Based on the contrary on a matter of principle? I am a bit lost on what you are on about, please clarify. Derailing? Proof of argument based on the contrary? Know adult who has got citizenship after 1 year?


You made an assumption / or asked would you you would get a decision with in 6 months. I said that you should not bank on that, yet. I explained why and in anticaption of those who are not good at rationale thinking who likely jump on at say its crap. (because, is seems that no one is allowed to criticise shatter here)

Your basing your argument that I am savagely attacking Shatter unfairly. I am simply being critical, and some of ye will later see, that I may be correct when we will see new threads - oh the has made a u turn. I made other critical comments on his statement about zambrano, which i was attacked and yet, low and behold, not only were there poster making the same arguments as me later but i say one or two people (sheep if they were regular contributors here,) who stated that he has made a u turn.

You just simply don't like the answer given to you. I am sorry, but for now, that is what is going on.
Maybe you know someone who got a decision after 1 year waiting? (exclude those on applications for minors)

he is a politican and all politicans are prone to make such statements. so its nothing personal on him. Have you any proof to back you up or even, stories of one fine contributor would say. As far as I see it, word is from people in Tipperary, is that they are still sending out letters to new applicants telling them that the 26 months is still ongoing BUT the plans to get the 6 month scheme will not be in place for a while. I am also of the understanding that they are now looking at cases from the end of 2009. I would add though, he is truely making an effort, despite the limited resources and lazy people in the department.

Seriously, if you are awaiting since 2007, you should now be talking to a lawyer. Have you delayed in responding to any requests for information? Have you always resided in the place that you lived in?

Oh it does seems you often assume that, i am desperate or frustrated in the system , capital No, am not, that's why we have judicial reviews and direct and indirect effect of matters that affects our daily life, and then use my non-privileged European standing to challenge such incompentency like the van der loss case and jago quere.

[walrusgumble]

Citizenship? There is no special rules for eligibility on citizenship simply by being a parent. One still needs to get 5 years residence first.

write to them, quoting your 68 number.

I am really convinced that Shatter's boasting about so many decisions are on a false basis ie those decisions were due anyway, as they were pending for the already estimated 23-24 months. It would have been better if he disclosed how many of those 5000 applications were actually from applications made in late 2009 - 2010

Are you confusing citizenship with residency ?

If you are not confusing it, and you are on a stamp 1, you should be able to register for stamp 4 by going to the gardaí on the basis of Zambrano. That would keep you safe while your citizenship application is pending.

Your argument is based on the contrary which is a matter of principle but am actually used to those derailing tactical move, however, i do agree with you on the subject residency reckonable of five years and one year continuous residency before application, the basis of my topic is that, how what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

Based on the contrary on a matter of principle? I am a bit lost on what you are on about, please clarify. Derailing? Proof of argument based on the contrary? Know adult who has got citizenship after 1 year?


You made an assumption / or asked would you you would get a decision with in 6 months. I said that you should not bank on that, yet. I explained why and in anticaption of those who are not good at rationale thinking who likely jump on at say its crap. (because, is seems that no one is allowed to criticise shatter here)

Your basing your argument that I am savagely attacking Shatter unfairly. I am simply being critical, and some of ye will later see, that I may be correct when we will see new threads - oh the has made a u turn. I made other critical comments on his statement about zambrano, which i was attacked and yet, low and behold, not only were there poster making the same arguments as me later but i say one or two people (sheep if they were regular contributors here,) who stated that he has made a u turn.

You just simply don't like the answer given to you. I am sorry, but for now, that is what is going on.
Maybe you know someone who got a decision after 1 year waiting? (exclude those on applications for minors)

he is a politican and all politicans are prone to make such statements. so its nothing personal on him. Have you any proof to back you up or even, stories of one fine contributor would say. As far as I see it, word is from people in Tipperary, is that they are still sending out letters to new applicants telling them that the 26 months is still ongoing BUT the plans to get the 6 month scheme will not be in place for a while. I am also of the understanding that they are now looking at cases from the end of 2009. I would add though, he is truely making an effort, despite the limited resources and lazy people in the department.

Seriously, if you are awaiting since 2007, you should now be talking to a lawyer. Have you delayed in responding to any requests for information? Have you always resided in the place that you lived in?

Oh it does seems you often assume that, i am desperate or frustrated in the system , capital No, am not, that's why we have judicial reviews and direct and indirect effect of matters that affects our daily life, and then use my non-privileged European standing to challenge such incompentency like the van der loss case and jago quere.

Look, are you looking for advice or not? The advice has been provided by me as above and everyone else. Follow that advice or stop whinging.

The questions asked where not assumptions. they were questions. the questions asked where examples of why delays occurred and no more. If you had provided answers to those questions i or others here would have been able to explain to you what to do next. It also determines whether or not you are at fault for such a long delay. If you have done everything correctly then you might have a good case to sue. I make no suggestion of desperation. I made these comments because no one else put these questions and scenerios to you. They were made with the uptmost good faith.

A delay since 2007 is extremely unusual as most people, from my knowledge have been dealt with.

Do I assume, no I don't for most part. I actually have contacts in these departments and I genuinely know what I am talking about. If you wish to point out where I am assuming something please point it out, and I will clarify things. When I do assume things, on these boards, I reguarly make it clear that my comment is an assumption or opinion.

You said
ot, that's why we have judicial reviews and direct and indirect effect of matters that affects our daily life, and then use my non-privileged European standing to challenge such incompentency like the van der loss case and jago quere.

How do I put this to you. European Law has absolutely nothing to do with the provision of Irish Citizenship. Therefore, your rights are soley based on irish law. Van Gend en Loos is not relevant here. You have no rights under Van Gend en Loos. Van Gend en Loos deals with the direct effect of EU Treaty provisions (and basis of EU legisaltion) and the ability to envoke same in a national court. You will not find any treaty or directive , not even article 20 and 21 tfeu, that concerns member states having to give citizenship to anyone. Oh, and Van Gend En Loos also deals with the freemovement of goods and the prohibition of customs on same.

You are respectively, wrong on your assertion.

However, under irish law, although there is no provision in the irish legislation on citizenship, as to a right to have a decision within a certain period, judicial review is available to complain about delays.

With regard to right of residence under Zambrano on the basis of parentage to an irish born child (all zambrano does is give residence to non eu person, your have not clarified whether is citizenship or residency - stamp 4 that you are looking for)

You are fully correct on vand gend en loos. Why are you getting worried? A decision will come as soon as possible, if you meet the criteria you will be ok and their won't be a need to seek court access. If you have legal status ie stamp 1, then go to the gardai now and get your zambrano rights for stamp 4 (which is all you will get)

[walrusgumble]

Unfortunatley INIS dont publish what you looking for unlike in UK/Netherlands/Canada etc they provide a breakdown of naturalisations by country, criteria etc. and also refusals etc.

Finding out this info is like bleeding the stone, what Minister Shatter has introduced now rejigging the website, hiring more staff and promising to make process efficient is a massive step in Irish terms (even though its poxy basic stuff all across western world and here govt boast that be jaysus its a massive thing).

Understand your frustration that you are waiting since 07 for an answer but now i am hypothetically speaking its not official line and open for corrections...Permit holders are the most vulnerable if compared to IBC/EU/Irish spouses/Asylum cases, why because firstly permit holders are in employment where they dont know if company closes down or make them redundant will another firm take them in (most firms dont because of the lengthy process involved) also they seldom make benefit claims because again being refused for citizenship and even permit renewal and also they hold higher qualification and skills.

Now comparing to spouses/IBC/asylum main thing going for them is their status because they can walk in to Immigration and get their stamps extended either free of cost and if not free of cost then without much hassle and can apply citizenship quicker then permit holders exception of IBC. (again i am sure there will be very well qualified spouses/IBC/asylum etc are around) so policy maker is looking at this thinking if they are being demanding then they are whinging and let them whinge. No point taking your frustration out on users in citizenship timeline thread its not their fault they also waited like everyone else but its this system's fault that boasts to be chronological but actually is illogical.

Well some of your explanation did make of bit of res-judicate case scenarios where status is absolute. However, your notion on people with status or intertwined Ibc/asylum whatever you call it walking into social welfare claiming benefit and affecting their renewal or naturalization process is in fact subject to judicial review in any way, but if you take a look on the new citizenship application the present government has simplify it by making sure that, every applicant explain why they are receiving such social credit when Chen case has already set the test of ''unreasonable burden'' usurping the social credit to refuse is in fact fell short of a legitimate reasons when an house wife is granted recently.

Chen involves a eu treaty right of a minor child to live in another EU state. In that case, the child was irish and wanted to live in the UK.

Chen had no application for irish children to live in ireland or german children to live in germany or french children to live in france. the fact that it was never used before nationals courts in this way makes that fact obvious.

that is why zambrano was so important. because for the first time, the eu confirmed that a citizen child had the unqualifed right to live in the country of their birth with their parents , without requirements of those required in Chen ie even if parent can't / won't work/on social. But it does not confer rights to the parent for citizenship it only gives residence to live in ireland to raise the child (also anyone who is the carer of the child)

But these cases have nothing to do with citizenship and the right of a member state to give citizenship to a person. eu rights only come into effect when a person has citizenship of a member state/ eu. citizenship is not conferred on parents simply because their child is a citizen,

The rules on unreasonable burden in chen or even in the directive 2004/38 ec have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for a parent to get citizenship through naturalisation.

Where someone who applies for Irish Citizenship through naturalisation, and the minister does not have to consider chen or any eu law case that talks about burdens to the state or unreasonable burdens. This requirement is only policy, it should, in the interest of fairness, be stated in legislation. However, the minister is perfectly entitled to refuse someone on the basis that they claim social welfare (fact - not opinion) but, he is also fully entitled, after considering the person's case, family, length of time on social, work history etc to grant citizenship even if that person has claimed loads of social welfare.

One example, if someone got refugee status, in reality, they have kind of loss their original citizenship because, as a condition of refugee status, they can't go back to their own country as its not safe. Some people may, for no fault of their own, have always being on social welfare and may have sought alot of social welfare. Perfectly nature for many reasons. It is likely, that despite the fact that they claimed social, they will still be entitled to citizenship as in reality, they need some form of citizenship and not be left in limbo - rightly so.

I say that it should be in legislation, because, as its only policy, the minister might unfairly refuse one person, yet give it to another. people are not really aware of what the conditions are and what social welfare will hurt their application.[/u]

With regard to judicial review, many judges are not keen on interferring with the minister's use of discretion to refuse an application . this is a big problem because it the only avenue for an appeal, and judicial review can be useless for that reason. that is not to say that a person will always loose a judicial review. If they provide really good additional information and their is evidence that the minister failed to properly use his discretion (should not refuse on a blanket basis - especially when social requirement is not in legislation) then there might be a case. a person is at all times entitled to fair procedures when their case is considered. they have an entitlement to have their application considered fairly.

[angelcountry]

Unfortunatley INIS dont publish what you looking for unlike in UK/Netherlands/Canada etc they provide a breakdown of naturalisations by country, criteria etc. and also refusals etc.

Finding out this info is like bleeding the stone, what Minister Shatter has introduced now rejigging the website, hiring more staff and promising to make process efficient is a massive step in Irish terms (even though its poxy basic stuff all across western world and here govt boast that be jaysus its a massive thing).

Understand your frustration that you are waiting since 07 for an answer but now i am hypothetically speaking its not official line and open for corrections...Permit holders are the most vulnerable if compared to IBC/EU/Irish spouses/Asylum cases, why because firstly permit holders are in employment where they dont know if company closes down or make them redundant will another firm take them in (most firms dont because of the lengthy process involved) also they seldom make benefit claims because again being refused for citizenship and even permit renewal and also they hold higher qualification and skills.

Now comparing to spouses/IBC/asylum main thing going for them is their status because they can walk in to Immigration and get their stamps extended either free of cost and if not free of cost then without much hassle and can apply citizenship quicker then permit holders exception of IBC. (again i am sure there will be very well qualified spouses/IBC/asylum etc are around) so policy maker is looking at this thinking if they are being demanding then they are whinging and let them whinge. No point taking your frustration out on users in citizenship timeline thread its not their fault they also waited like everyone else but its this system's fault that boasts to be chronological but actually is illogical.

Well some of your explanation did make of bit of res-judicate case scenarios where status is absolute. However, your notion on people with status or intertwined Ibc/asylum whatever you call it walking into social welfare claiming benefit and affecting their renewal or naturalization process is in fact subject to judicial review in any way, but if you take a look on the new citizenship application the present government has simplify it by making sure that, every applicant explain why they are receiving such social credit when Chen case has already set the test of ''unreasonable burden'' usurping the social credit to refuse is in fact fell short of a legitimate reasons when an house wife is granted recently.

Chen involves a eu treaty right of a minor child to live in another EU state. In that case, the child was irish and wanted to live in the UK.

Chen had no application for irish children to live in ireland or german children to live in germany or french children to live in france. the fact that it was never used before nationals courts in this way makes that fact obvious.

that is why zambrano was so important. because for the first time, the eu confirmed that a citizen child had the unqualifed right to live in the country of their birth with their parents , without requirements of those required in Chen ie even if parent can't / won't work/on social. But it does not confer rights to the parent for citizenship it only gives residence to live in ireland to raise the child (also anyone who is the carer of the child)

But these cases have nothing to do with citizenship and the right of a member state to give citizenship to a person. eu rights only come into effect when a person has citizenship of a member state/ eu. citizenship is not conferred on parents simply because their child is a citizen,

The rules on unreasonable burden in chen or even in the directive 2004/38 ec have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for a parent to get citizenship through naturalisation.

Where someone who applies for Irish Citizenship through naturalisation, and the minister does not have to consider chen or any eu law case that talks about burdens to the state or unreasonable burdens. This requirement is only policy, it should, in the interest of fairness, be stated in legislation. However, the minister is perfectly entitled to refuse someone on the basis that they claim social welfare (fact - not opinion) but, he is also fully entitled, after considering the person's case, family, length of time on social, work history etc to grant citizenship even if that person has claimed loads of social welfare.

One example, if someone got refugee status, in reality, they have kind of loss their original citizenship because, as a condition of refugee status, they can't go back to their own country as its not safe. Some people may, for no fault of their own, have always being on social welfare and may have sought alot of social welfare. Perfectly nature for many reasons. It is likely, that despite the fact that they claimed social, they will still be entitled to citizenship as in reality, they need some form of citizenship and not be left in limbo - rightly so.

I say that it should be in legislation, because, as its only policy, the minister might unfairly refuse one person, yet give it to another. people are not really aware of what the conditions are and what social welfare will hurt their application.[/u]

With regard to judicial review, many judges are not keen on interferring with the minister's use of discretion to refuse an application . this is a big problem because it the only avenue for an appeal, and judicial review can be useless for that reason. that is not to say that a person will always loose a judicial review. If they provide really good additional information and their is evidence that the minister failed to properly use his discretion (should not refuse on a blanket basis - especially when social requirement is not in legislation) then there might be a case. a person is at all times entitled to fair procedures when their case is considered. they have an entitlement to have their application considered fairly.

I think you normally go round and round with absolutely nothing to deliver rather than your opinion, the pre-requisite for application for citizenship has been set by virtue of 5 years reckonable residency otherwise the application will not be processed, how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

Moreover, you lack the jurisprudence in the subject matter you are writing about and i have decided to ignore people like you with or without a knowledge of what you're talking or writing about.

[walrusgumble]

Unfortunatley INIS dont publish what you looking for unlike in UK/Netherlands/Canada etc they provide a breakdown of naturalisations by country, criteria etc. and also refusals etc.

Finding out this info is like bleeding the stone, what Minister Shatter has introduced now rejigging the website, hiring more staff and promising to make process efficient is a massive step in Irish terms (even though its poxy basic stuff all across western world and here govt boast that be jaysus its a massive thing).

Understand your frustration that you are waiting since 07 for an answer but now i am hypothetically speaking its not official line and open for corrections...Permit holders are the most vulnerable if compared to IBC/EU/Irish spouses/Asylum cases, why because firstly permit holders are in employment where they dont know if company closes down or make them redundant will another firm take them in (most firms dont because of the lengthy process involved) also they seldom make benefit claims because again being refused for citizenship and even permit renewal and also they hold higher qualification and skills.

Now comparing to spouses/IBC/asylum main thing going for them is their status because they can walk in to Immigration and get their stamps extended either free of cost and if not free of cost then without much hassle and can apply citizenship quicker then permit holders exception of IBC. (again i am sure there will be very well qualified spouses/IBC/asylum etc are around) so policy maker is looking at this thinking if they are being demanding then they are whinging and let them whinge. No point taking your frustration out on users in citizenship timeline thread its not their fault they also waited like everyone else but its this system's fault that boasts to be chronological but actually is illogical.

Well some of your explanation did make of bit of res-judicate case scenarios where status is absolute. However, your notion on people with status or intertwined Ibc/asylum whatever you call it walking into social welfare claiming benefit and affecting their renewal or naturalization process is in fact subject to judicial review in any way, but if you take a look on the new citizenship application the present government has simplify it by making sure that, every applicant explain why they are receiving such social credit when Chen case has already set the test of ''unreasonable burden'' usurping the social credit to refuse is in fact fell short of a legitimate reasons when an house wife is granted recently.

Chen involves a eu treaty right of a minor child to live in another EU state. In that case, the child was irish and wanted to live in the UK.

Chen had no application for irish children to live in ireland or german children to live in germany or french children to live in france. the fact that it was never used before nationals courts in this way makes that fact obvious.

that is why zambrano was so important. because for the first time, the eu confirmed that a citizen child had the unqualifed right to live in the country of their birth with their parents , without requirements of those required in Chen ie even if parent can't / won't work/on social. But it does not confer rights to the parent for citizenship it only gives residence to live in ireland to raise the child (also anyone who is the carer of the child)

But these cases have nothing to do with citizenship and the right of a member state to give citizenship to a person. eu rights only come into effect when a person has citizenship of a member state/ eu. citizenship is not conferred on parents simply because their child is a citizen,

The rules on unreasonable burden in chen or even in the directive 2004/38 ec have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for a parent to get citizenship through naturalisation.

Where someone who applies for Irish Citizenship through naturalisation, and the minister does not have to consider chen or any eu law case that talks about burdens to the state or unreasonable burdens. This requirement is only policy, it should, in the interest of fairness, be stated in legislation. However, the minister is perfectly entitled to refuse someone on the basis that they claim social welfare (fact - not opinion) but, he is also fully entitled, after considering the person's case, family, length of time on social, work history etc to grant citizenship even if that person has claimed loads of social welfare.

One example, if someone got refugee status, in reality, they have kind of loss their original citizenship because, as a condition of refugee status, they can't go back to their own country as its not safe. Some people may, for no fault of their own, have always being on social welfare and may have sought alot of social welfare. Perfectly nature for many reasons. It is likely, that despite the fact that they claimed social, they will still be entitled to citizenship as in reality, they need some form of citizenship and not be left in limbo - rightly so.

I say that it should be in legislation, because, as its only policy, the minister might unfairly refuse one person, yet give it to another. people are not really aware of what the conditions are and what social welfare will hurt their application.[/u]

With regard to judicial review, many judges are not keen on interferring with the minister's use of discretion to refuse an application . this is a big problem because it the only avenue for an appeal, and judicial review can be useless for that reason. that is not to say that a person will always loose a judicial review. If they provide really good additional information and their is evidence that the minister failed to properly use his discretion (should not refuse on a blanket basis - especially when social requirement is not in legislation) then there might be a case. a person is at all times entitled to fair procedures when their case is considered. they have an entitlement to have their application considered fairly.

I think you normally go round and round with absolutely nothing to deliver rather than your opinion, the pre-requisite for application for citizenship has been set by virtue of 5 years reckonable residency otherwise the application will not be processed, how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

Moreover, you lack the jurisprudence in the subject matter you are writing about and i have decided to ignore people like you with or without a knowledge of what you're talking or writing about.

Going round and round? So specifically addressing every retard and illfounded comment on this board, is going round and round? My arguements are based on facts and what the law says. Its not my opinion.

Nothing to deliver? I don't intend to deliver anything but just to point out that you have made incorrect comments. Your too thick or stuck in your own ways to accept that you are wrong, but at least for others who are seeking advice and looking at this, it at least not stupidly rely on your otherwise negligent opinion.

You say nothing to deliver, well point out where I am incorrect.

You said
pre-requisite for application for citizenship has been set by virtue of 5 years reckonable residency otherwise the application will not be processed, how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.


Yes the requisite is 5 years. that is contained in the Irish citizenship and Nationality Act of 1956-2004. That part you are correct, but no one is disputing this. You had earlier asked whether you should get a stamp 5 in order to get fast tracked. I told you that considering that you are a parent of a citizen child you already have a stamp 4 which is basically the same as a stamp 5 (conditions of residency are essentially the same) I now tell you that it would not determine getting fast tracked for citizenship as citizenship decisions are first in first out.

I have asked you twice to confirm whether you are seeking citizenship or residency on the basis of parentage of irish citizenship, as your statements show you are confusing both terms, accidential.You ignored that question, instead decided to act like a self righteous paranoid tosser. I proceeded to explain the law on both citizenship and in case it was not that, residence on the basis of parentage of irish citizen child, in separate paragraphs.

You said/asked earlier
what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

People who were granted IBC under the IBC 05 scheme would only be elgibile for citizenship in 2010-2011. So very few of these people would have got a decision yet as they were only eligible to apply recently. For people who got residency on the basis of parentage of irish citizen children prior to the 2005 scheme, as patty says, no one can answer that.

What do you mean by work permit five years naturalisation figure is greater and privileged in the process?

The is only 2 types of citizenship. 3 year requirement for refugee and people married and resident in ireland with irish spouses. And the second covers everyone else who gets residency. IBC and work permit people will not be treated differently when being considered. Where is the proof that they are priviledged? Both are expected to not have resorted to most social welfare for 3 years prior to application and both can't have criminal offences.

Some of you base your comment on what you would like it to say, Listen you thought Van Gend En Loos applied to law on Irish citizenships, so I would not take any opinion or thought of yours seriously. Either way, you thought wrong.


Something, in my opinion, has seriously gone wrong in your application if you have been waiting for a decision for citizenship since 2007. Write to the department and speak to a lawyer.

As for the Zhu and chen comment you made earlier, You said/asked

how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

Moreover, you lack the jurisprudence in the subject matter you are writing about and i have decided to ignore people like you with or without a knowledge of what you're talking or writing about.

My lack of jurisprudence? My lack thereof? Simply stating a case is not evidence of knowing jurisprudence, you have just after stupidly misunderstood two major eu cases that are completely irrelevant to your case. Not even a 15 year old would be that stupid. Are you seriously contending that my interpretation of Van Gend En Loos is incorrect? You you realise that jurisprudence also refers to the ability to identify the CORRECT caselaw to deal with one's own case. You really are ignorant

You are seriously is the only one on this thread that is goin around and around. Chen got citizenship because she was born in the island of Ireland before 2004 when the citizenship laws conferred automatic citizenship simply by being born here. the law did not have the condition of any residence. that law has now changed. But that does not effect chen. The mother, Zhu, was never given Irish citizenship, and it would have been unlikely that , as a parent of an Irish citizen, in light of the 2003 Supreme Court judgment, the mother might not have been entitled to residency in Ireland. The ECJ case concerned the right of the irish child and her mother to be allowed TO LIVE IN THE UK UNDER EU LAW. Chen has nothing to do with you,

Nothing in the Chen case actually gives the mother the right to live in the UK for all her life. Chen will be an adult when she turns 18/21, she will need her mother then. Once chen becomes an adult, she will be expected to exercise her eu rights via article 7 of the directive unless she can get permanent residency. BUT, in reality, the mother will not be asked to leave and will lend up live in the UK all her life

look after nanny state? Is this the same nanny state that gives alot of the mothers of citizen child rent allowance, children's allowance, single mother benefits, supplementary welfare, ensured the deregulation of taxis in order to make it easier for immigrants to get a taxi licence, ? - I am not suggesting that it was wrong to help these people, certaintly not. But do some people now come across as extremely ungrateful? (you clearly said that you worked all your time here to that has nothing to do with you) What do you mean by nanny state? Do you even know what that term means? These people are most certaintly not looking after any state.

What countries have every given automatic (as oppose to naturalisation) citizenship to people simply because their child is a citizen? So its a nanny state for any country to have laws on who to give citizenship?

you said
your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

It is the people of ireland that gives the government power by the Enactment of the constitution. it was the people of ireland that enacted the constitution. You should read it. Government gave me no right to citizenship of the country of my birth and country of my ancestors. The constitution did. it was the people who amended the consitution to change the laws on citizenship.People got frustrated with the situation in 2000-2004 because our country become a baby shopping country, the intergrity of the citizenship was being abused. We were one of the last countries of the eu that had continue with its generous right of automatic citizenship on birth,. chen was not the reason for the change of the laws, we had already set down the date and bill for the referendum, chen was heard shortly before the referendum and was used to convence people who were already convenced that changing the laws was correct. When your country experiences the same problems in the future, come back to us then.

The referendum of citizenship did not halt the Good Friday Agreement. GFA was signed and accepted by both sides via referedum in 1998. The citizenship referendum occurred in 2004.

Ignore me all you want. Our comments are on a public board. If you like embarrassing your self and showing yourself up to be an idiot, thats ok.

Your ignorance of Irish politics, law and EU in general is hillarious. be grateful that there is no tests (like other countries) for citizenship, going by what you have said.

[Muttsnuts]

Tone of the posts on this forum is degenerating daily. It's also getting to be more and more of a pain in the a** to wade through the ENORMOUS posts which seem to be getting more and more nasty by the day.

It would be great if posts could stick to the topics and if people who want to have legal discussion / debate, then start a thread to do so...

[angelcountry]

Well some of your explanation did make of bit of res-judicate case scenarios where status is absolute. However, your notion on people with status or intertwined Ibc/asylum whatever you call it walking into social welfare claiming benefit and affecting their renewal or naturalization process is in fact subject to judicial review in any way, but if you take a look on the new citizenship application the present government has simplify it by making sure that, every applicant explain why they are receiving such social credit when Chen case has already set the test of ''unreasonable burden'' usurping the social credit to refuse is in fact fell short of a legitimate reasons when an house wife is granted recently.

Chen involves a eu treaty right of a minor child to live in another EU state. In that case, the child was irish and wanted to live in the UK.

Chen had no application for irish children to live in ireland or german children to live in germany or french children to live in france. the fact that it was never used before nationals courts in this way makes that fact obvious.

that is why zambrano was so important. because for the first time, the eu confirmed that a citizen child had the unqualifed right to live in the country of their birth with their parents , without requirements of those required in Chen ie even if parent can't / won't work/on social. But it does not confer rights to the parent for citizenship it only gives residence to live in ireland to raise the child (also anyone who is the carer of the child)

But these cases have nothing to do with citizenship and the right of a member state to give citizenship to a person. eu rights only come into effect when a person has citizenship of a member state/ eu. citizenship is not conferred on parents simply because their child is a citizen,

The rules on unreasonable burden in chen or even in the directive 2004/38 ec have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for a parent to get citizenship through naturalisation.

Where someone who applies for Irish Citizenship through naturalisation, and the minister does not have to consider chen or any eu law case that talks about burdens to the state or unreasonable burdens. This requirement is only policy, it should, in the interest of fairness, be stated in legislation. However, the minister is perfectly entitled to refuse someone on the basis that they claim social welfare (fact - not opinion) but, he is also fully entitled, after considering the person's case, family, length of time on social, work history etc to grant citizenship even if that person has claimed loads of social welfare.

One example, if someone got refugee status, in reality, they have kind of loss their original citizenship because, as a condition of refugee status, they can't go back to their own country as its not safe. Some people may, for no fault of their own, have always being on social welfare and may have sought alot of social welfare. Perfectly nature for many reasons. It is likely, that despite the fact that they claimed social, they will still be entitled to citizenship as in reality, they need some form of citizenship and not be left in limbo - rightly so.

I say that it should be in legislation, because, as its only policy, the minister might unfairly refuse one person, yet give it to another. people are not really aware of what the conditions are and what social welfare will hurt their application.[/u]

With regard to judicial review, many judges are not keen on interferring with the minister's use of discretion to refuse an application . this is a big problem because it the only avenue for an appeal, and judicial review can be useless for that reason. that is not to say that a person will always loose a judicial review. If they provide really good additional information and their is evidence that the minister failed to properly use his discretion (should not refuse on a blanket basis - especially when social requirement is not in legislation) then there might be a case. a person is at all times entitled to fair procedures when their case is considered. they have an entitlement to have their application considered fairly.

I think you normally go round and round with absolutely nothing to deliver rather than your opinion, the pre-requisite for application for citizenship has been set by virtue of 5 years reckonable residency otherwise the application will not be processed, how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

Moreover, you lack the jurisprudence in the subject matter you are writing about and i have decided to ignore people like you with or without a knowledge of what you're talking or writing about.

Going round and round? So specifically addressing every retard and illfounded comment on this board, is going round and round? My arguements are based on facts and what the law says. Its not my opinion.

Nothing to deliver? I don't intend to deliver anything but just to point out that you have made incorrect comments. Your too thick or stuck in your own ways to accept that you are wrong, but at least for others who are seeking advice and looking at this, it at least not stupidly rely on your otherwise negligent opinion.

You say nothing to deliver, well point out where I am incorrect.

You said
pre-requisite for application for citizenship has been set by virtue of 5 years reckonable residency otherwise the application will not be processed, how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.


Yes the requisite is 5 years. that is contained in the Irish citizenship and Nationality Act of 1956-2004. That part you are correct, but no one is disputing this. You had earlier asked whether you should get a stamp 5 in order to get fast tracked. I told you that considering that you are a parent of a citizen child you already have a stamp 4 which is basically the same as a stamp 5 (conditions of residency are essentially the same) I now tell you that it would not determine getting fast tracked for citizenship as citizenship decisions are first in first out.

I have asked you twice to confirm whether you are seeking citizenship or residency on the basis of parentage of irish citizenship, as your statements show you are confusing both terms, accidential.You ignored that question, instead decided to act like a self righteous paranoid tosser. I proceeded to explain the law on both citizenship and in case it was not that, residence on the basis of parentage of irish citizen child, in separate paragraphs.

You said/asked earlier
what is the figure of people that apply by IBC five years that have been granted citizenship and work permit five years cozz work permit five years naturalization figure is greater and privileged in the process, explain ?

People who were granted IBC under the IBC 05 scheme would only be elgibile for citizenship in 2010-2011. So very few of these people would have got a decision yet as they were only eligible to apply recently. For people who got residency on the basis of parentage of irish citizen children prior to the 2005 scheme, as patty says, no one can answer that.

What do you mean by work permit five years naturalisation figure is greater and privileged in the process?

The is only 2 types of citizenship. 3 year requirement for refugee and people married and resident in ireland with irish spouses. And the second covers everyone else who gets residency. IBC and work permit people will not be treated differently when being considered. Where is the proof that they are priviledged? Both are expected to not have resorted to most social welfare for 3 years prior to application and both can't have criminal offences.

Some of you base your comment on what you would like it to say, Listen you thought Van Gend En Loos applied to law on Irish citizenships, so I would not take any opinion or thought of yours seriously. Either way, you thought wrong.


Something, in my opinion, has seriously gone wrong in your application if you have been waiting for a decision for citizenship since 2007. Write to the department and speak to a lawyer.

As for the Zhu and chen comment you made earlier, You said/asked

how there would you interprete the zhu and chen that, those parents are just granted right for the rest of their life to look after nanny state you've created and not entitled to citizenship is in fact shows your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

Moreover, you lack the jurisprudence in the subject matter you are writing about and i have decided to ignore people like you with or without a knowledge of what you're talking or writing about.

My lack of jurisprudence? My lack thereof? Simply stating a case is not evidence of knowing jurisprudence, you have just after stupidly misunderstood two major eu cases that are completely irrelevant to your case. Not even a 15 year old would be that stupid. Are you seriously contending that my interpretation of Van Gend En Loos is incorrect? You you realise that jurisprudence also refers to the ability to identify the CORRECT caselaw to deal with one's own case. You really are ignorant

You are seriously is the only one on this thread that is goin around and around. Chen got citizenship because she was born in the island of Ireland before 2004 when the citizenship laws conferred automatic citizenship simply by being born here. the law did not have the condition of any residence. that law has now changed. But that does not effect chen. The mother, Zhu, was never given Irish citizenship, and it would have been unlikely that , as a parent of an Irish citizen, in light of the 2003 Supreme Court judgment, the mother might not have been entitled to residency in Ireland. The ECJ case concerned the right of the irish child and her mother to be allowed TO LIVE IN THE UK UNDER EU LAW. Chen has nothing to do with you,

Nothing in the Chen case actually gives the mother the right to live in the UK for all her life. Chen will be an adult when she turns 18/21, she will need her mother then. Once chen becomes an adult, she will be expected to exercise her eu rights via article 7 of the directive unless she can get permanent residency. BUT, in reality, the mother will not be asked to leave and will lend up live in the UK all her life

look after nanny state? Is this the same nanny state that gives alot of the mothers of citizen child rent allowance, children's allowance, single mother benefits, supplementary welfare, ensured the deregulation of taxis in order to make it easier for immigrants to get a taxi licence, ? - I am not suggesting that it was wrong to help these people, certaintly not. But do some people now come across as extremely ungrateful? (you clearly said that you worked all your time here to that has nothing to do with you) What do you mean by nanny state? Do you even know what that term means? These people are most certaintly not looking after any state.

What countries have every given automatic (as oppose to naturalisation) citizenship to people simply because their child is a citizen? So its a nanny state for any country to have laws on who to give citizenship?

you said
your fustration of what the government gave people like you in the birth of citizenship referendum that halted the good friday agreement for the non-European given birth in ireland.

It is the people of ireland that gives the government power by the Enactment of the constitution. it was the people of ireland that enacted the constitution. You should read it. Government gave me no right to citizenship of the country of my birth and country of my ancestors. The constitution did. it was the people who amended the consitution to change the laws on citizenship.People got frustrated with the situation in 2000-2004 because our country become a baby shopping country, the intergrity of the citizenship was being abused. We were one of the last countries of the eu that had continue with its generous right of automatic citizenship on birth,. chen was not the reason for the change of the laws, we had already set down the date and bill for the referendum, chen was heard shortly before the referendum and was used to convence people who were already convenced that changing the laws was correct. When your country experiences the same problems in the future, come back to us then.

The referendum of citizenship did not halt the Good Friday Agreement. GFA was signed and accepted by both sides via referedum in 1998. The citizenship referendum occurred in 2004.

Ignore me all you want. Our comments are on a public board. If you like embarrassing your self and showing yourself up to be an idiot, thats ok.

Your ignorance of Irish politics, law and EU in general is hillarious. be grateful that there is no tests (like other countries) for citizenship, going by what you have said.

Well they hell are you repeating words on and on ?
Again when is the next referendum on the right of children going to take place per article 42 of the Irish constitution which they will insert the word children ?

You absolutely make me and runs out of word anyway.

Now what's is the figure of unemployed in Ireland at present ?

For example what is a crime and what is the indecia of crime to warrant the INIS not denied citizenship to applicant ?

And lastly get the new application form for naturalisation and see what's there based on social welfare.

The rest of the comment you made about me, is just silent is the best answer for the chands like you.

[MidnightHawk]

@angelcountry - walrusgumble, like most other people on this forum, is merely expresses his opinion. sometimes it's useful to glean from other's experiences with the system and their own personal trials and tribulations, but that's really it.

You should not take advice from this forum as cast in stone - for that you really need to seek legal advice - remember - this is a public forum with people from all walks of life contributing and sometimes you need to take posts with a pinch of salt.

On a personal note, I have been following some of your comments for some time and I must admit I am not always sure what you are going on about.

[walrusgumble]

@angelcountry - walrusgumble, like most other people on this forum, is merely expresses his opinion. sometimes it's useful to glean from other's experiences with the system and their own personal trials and tribulations, but that's really it.

You should not take advice from this forum as cast in stone - for that you really need to seek legal advice - remember - this is a public forum with people from all walks of life contributing and sometimes you need to take posts with a pinch of salt.

On a personal note, I have been following some of your comments for some time and I must admit I am not always sure what you are going on about.

Merely expressing opinion? Right, listen, legislation and case law is pretty clear or as far as the ECJ's refusal to properly address and comment on more detailed and interesting views of the Advocate General and showing an inability to properly explain things, then its unclear. Stating/pointing out/re-stating what the legislation , case law, and potential problems and difficulties it causes to traditional settled legal views as expressed by experts, is hardly an opinion. Your comment is pretty disengenious.

Particularily so, considerding alot of what was said by me, now and in the past, has shown to be pretty valid and accurate.

Eg - Discussion on dual nationality and internal matter in McCarthy, potential problems caused by Zambrano and potential remedies as suggested by the expert on Prime Time, The likelihood that Shatter will not be able to deliver on his promises for quick decisions on citizenship for 6 months (i mean immeditately put it in force as he suggests - its not possible yet, but it is going to happen), of shatter's liklihood that, contrary to his statement on zambrano, will see challenges in the High Court continue or commence (as seen in the categories which he has claimed don't apply to the case, despite, as least arguably, though incorrect, fallen within zambrano)

Some people, after thinking about things and seeing the enviroment for themseleves, have finally expressed similar views, not neccessarily their own comments or even an expression that they disagree or agree with them him/herself, but merely stating this is where they see things going. Now attacks on them though, oh but i state these 1-2 months before, it like been surrounded by a but of vampires.

Seriously, if i wanted to express my own opinions, i am honest enough to make it clear that my comments here on this site are opinions. but what is said thereafter are basically telling people up front why things are the way they are, with no bullshit nicities. if people are smart enough, they will use the information to their advantage and work a way around the obstacles that i have highlighted. If i wanted to express my views and opinions on the substantive issues then even I know that this is not the site for them

People are entitled to challenge poster's unfounded, self serving, hypocritical (in the sense that their countries do treat people similar or worse) and ridiculous comments made about this country ,especially when they are wrong.

[walrusgumble]

Well they hell are you repeating words on and on ?
Again when is the next referendum on the right of children going to take place per article 42 of the Irish constitution which they will insert the word children ?

You absolutely make me and runs out of word anyway.

Now what's is the figure of unemployed in Ireland at present ?

For example what is a crime and what is the indecia of crime to warrant the INIS not denied citizenship to applicant ?

And lastly get the new application form for naturalisation and see what's there based on social welfare.

The rest of the comment you made about me, is just silent is the best answer for the chands like you.

Angel, the comments made is a direct response to each comment made by you. If they are repeated, they are merely the explanations to reasons why some of your arguments, which you have repeated, (even if they have ready been clearly proven to inaccurate), are wrong. There is no malice intended and they are not plucked out of the air but directly from the cases and political statement made at the time.

The referedendum on children was suppose to happen ages ago. Sadly, in my opinion, I do not see this happening for some time. Is it due to go ahead in October with the other two referedendums? (on Tribunals and Judges salary)

I see a lot of problems on the text for the government(for which I would support a child's clause, especially one on like the un convention on children). Why do I say that? State don't want to commit themselves to more public expenditure provided by the Constitution . see cases like Sinnott v Min for Education 2001, TD v Minister for Education 2001 (Supreme Court) The State, have not exactly being brilliant in their duty under article 42 in protecting children (eg Catholic church scandal, hse care, ) To put bluntly, the less the government has a responsibilty on matters, in this new neo liberal political environment, the better, in the eyes of any government. (that's wrong morally and ethically of course)


Unemployment figures? Far too high for comfort - I hope you don't insinuate that I am suggesting immigrants are some how responsible, because I don't. I do not see why you are laughing about that. Would you argee though, that the immigrant would be in a worse off position, as politicans won't be to bothered if they are not politically active? I have heard many immigrants complain about this.

Crime and Citizenship. First of all, what is so funny with what was said? Your question about it though is a good one. That is a good point. In my opinion, reasons for refusal like minor road offences that are not dangerous driving should not be grounds for refusal. Neither should the fact that you were in court but was proven innocent, or even got off on a techincality or the guard or dpp did not bother to press charges. We have a traditional fundamental princple that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Minister ignores this.

But I have already stated before, that the previous government rarely refused on these basis in the past. Its only in the last few years in light of the economy. Again, its a policy and administrative defintion and not legal /statutory. THe legislation does not defined good character and there is little case law here, the uk or in other common law jurisdictions. the best bet it simply stay out of trouble.

As for rates, the department puts these figures up on their site annually, so you might find them if you look hard.

Comments made about you are simply on the basis of what you have said here. its very hard to disagree with them. So yes, silence would be a good idea when you don't take too kind to home truths (solely based on what you said)

Social welfare, they for the first time ask people what social they are claiming for last 3 years.better off being honest as failure to disclose will result in automatic refusal when they investigate. the ones that i have highlighted previously, bar child benefit, then to be enough to refuse citizenship. that is not to say however, that after a full and proper consideration of a person's case that people and their time in Ireland and in light of the current economy those people will be refused under Shatter. But, Shatter's politics in general are based on Fine Gael ethos, maybe a bit more unstanding though. People who have spent more time on social than working will unlikely do to well. So people should always provide more evidence than asked to prove that the person truely integrated into society, eg membership of clubs and voluntary groups.

[angelcountry]

Well they hell are you repeating words on and on ?
Again when is the next referendum on the right of children going to take place per article 42 of the Irish constitution which they will insert the word children ?

You absolutely make me and runs out of word anyway.

Now what's is the figure of unemployed in Ireland at present ?

For example what is a crime and what is the indecia of crime to warrant the INIS not denied citizenship to applicant ?

And lastly get the new application form for naturalisation and see what's there based on social welfare.

The rest of the comment you made about me, is just silent is the best answer for the chands like you.

Angel, the comments made is a direct response to each comment made by you. If they are repeated, they are merely the explanations to reasons why some of your arguments, which you have repeated, (even if they have ready been clearly proven to inaccurate), are wrong. There is no malice intended and they are not plucked out of the air but directly from the cases and political statement made at the time.

The referedendum on children was suppose to happen ages ago. Sadly, in my opinion, I do not see this happening for some time. Is it due to go ahead in October with the other two referedendums? (on Tribunals and Judges salary)

I see a lot of problems on the text for the government(for which I would support a child's clause, especially one on like the un convention on children). Why do I say that? State don't want to commit themselves to more public expenditure provided by the Constitution . see cases like Sinnott v Min for Education 2001, TD v Minister for Education 2001 (Supreme Court) The State, have not exactly being brilliant in their duty under article 42 in protecting children (eg Catholic church scandal, hse care, ) To put bluntly, the less the government has a responsibilty on matters, in this new neo liberal political environment, the better, in the eyes of any government. (that's wrong morally and ethically of course)


Unemployment figures? Far too high for comfort - I hope you don't insinuate that I am suggesting immigrants are some how responsible, because I don't. I do not see why you are laughing about that. Would you argee though, that the immigrant would be in a worse off position, as politicans won't be to bothered if they are not politically active? I have heard many immigrants complain about this.

Crime and Citizenship. First of all, what is so funny with what was said? Your question about it though is a good one. That is a good point. In my opinion, reasons for refusal like minor road offences that are not dangerous driving should not be grounds for refusal. Neither should the fact that you were in court but was proven innocent, or even got off on a techincality or the guard or dpp did not bother to press charges. We have a traditional fundamental princple that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Minister ignores this.

But I have already stated before, that the previous government rarely refused on these basis in the past. Its only in the last few years in light of the economy. Again, its a policy and administrative defintion and not legal /statutory. THe legislation does not defined good character and there is little case law here, the uk or in other common law jurisdictions. the best bet it simply stay out of trouble.

As for rates, the department puts these figures up on their site annually, so you might find them if you look hard.

Comments made about you are simply on the basis of what you have said here. its very hard to disagree with them. So yes, silence would be a good idea when you don't take too kind to home truths (solely based on what you said)

Social welfare, they for the first time ask people what social they are claiming for last 3 years.better off being honest as failure to disclose will result in automatic refusal when they investigate. the ones that i have highlighted previously, bar child benefit, then to be enough to refuse citizenship. that is not to say however, that after a full and proper consideration of a person's case that people and their time in Ireland and in light of the current economy those people will be refused under Shatter. But, Shatter's politics in general are based on Fine Gael ethos, maybe a bit more unstanding though. People who have spent more time on social than working will unlikely do to well. So people should always provide more evidence than asked to prove that the person truely integrated into society, eg membership of clubs and voluntary groups.

First time in history you ever wrote a good stuff, Moath go luath agus Abaile.

[walrusgumble]

Well they hell are you repeating words on and on ?
Again when is the next referendum on the right of children going to take place per article 42 of the Irish constitution which they will insert the word children ?

You absolutely make me and runs out of word anyway.

Now what's is the figure of unemployed in Ireland at present ?

For example what is a crime and what is the indecia of crime to warrant the INIS not denied citizenship to applicant ?

And lastly get the new application form for naturalisation and see what's there based on social welfare.

The rest of the comment you made about me, is just silent is the best answer for the chands like you.

Angel, the comments made is a direct response to each comment made by you. If they are repeated, they are merely the explanations to reasons why some of your arguments, which you have repeated, (even if they have ready been clearly proven to inaccurate), are wrong. There is no malice intended and they are not plucked out of the air but directly from the cases and political statement made at the time.

The referedendum on children was suppose to happen ages ago. Sadly, in my opinion, I do not see this happening for some time. Is it due to go ahead in October with the other two referedendums? (on Tribunals and Judges salary)

I see a lot of problems on the text for the government(for which I would support a child's clause, especially one on like the un convention on children). Why do I say that? State don't want to commit themselves to more public expenditure provided by the Constitution . see cases like Sinnott v Min for Education 2001, TD v Minister for Education 2001 (Supreme Court) The State, have not exactly being brilliant in their duty under article 42 in protecting children (eg Catholic church scandal, hse care, ) To put bluntly, the less the government has a responsibilty on matters, in this new neo liberal political environment, the better, in the eyes of any government. (that's wrong morally and ethically of course)


Unemployment figures? Far too high for comfort - I hope you don't insinuate that I am suggesting immigrants are some how responsible, because I don't. I do not see why you are laughing about that. Would you argee though, that the immigrant would be in a worse off position, as politicans won't be to bothered if they are not politically active? I have heard many immigrants complain about this.

Crime and Citizenship. First of all, what is so funny with what was said? Your question about it though is a good one. That is a good point. In my opinion, reasons for refusal like minor road offences that are not dangerous driving should not be grounds for refusal. Neither should the fact that you were in court but was proven innocent, or even got off on a techincality or the guard or dpp did not bother to press charges. We have a traditional fundamental princple that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Minister ignores this.

But I have already stated before, that the previous government rarely refused on these basis in the past. Its only in the last few years in light of the economy. Again, its a policy and administrative defintion and not legal /statutory. THe legislation does not defined good character and there is little case law here, the uk or in other common law jurisdictions. the best bet it simply stay out of trouble.

As for rates, the department puts these figures up on their site annually, so you might find them if you look hard.

Comments made about you are simply on the basis of what you have said here. its very hard to disagree with them. So yes, silence would be a good idea when you don't take too kind to home truths (solely based on what you said)

Social welfare, they for the first time ask people what social they are claiming for last 3 years.better off being honest as failure to disclose will result in automatic refusal when they investigate. the ones that i have highlighted previously, bar child benefit, then to be enough to refuse citizenship. that is not to say however, that after a full and proper consideration of a person's case that people and their time in Ireland and in light of the current economy those people will be refused under Shatter. But, Shatter's politics in general are based on Fine Gael ethos, maybe a bit more unstanding though. People who have spent more time on social than working will unlikely do to well. So people should always provide more evidence than asked to prove that the person truely integrated into society, eg membership of clubs and voluntary groups.

First time in history you ever wrote a good stuff, Moath go luath agus Abaile.

Ah its take becaue it met with your liking of what you want the world to be?

You shall see, I have been pretty accurate with alot of what I have said. If you did not act the bollox and ceased with the persecution complex alot quicker, you would have got all your answers very very very quickly


I know now what to do in the future. when making a statement of fact or confirm what the law says, i will put in brackets that it is such. and when its an opinion do likewise, it will look like i am treating ye like children, but there you go

[angelcountry]

Well they hell are you repeating words on and on ?
Again when is the next referendum on the right of children going to take place per article 42 of the Irish constitution which they will insert the word children ?

You absolutely make me and runs out of word anyway.

Now what's is the figure of unemployed in Ireland at present ?

For example what is a crime and what is the indecia of crime to warrant the INIS not denied citizenship to applicant ?

And lastly get the new application form for naturalisation and see what's there based on social welfare.

The rest of the comment you made about me, is just silent is the best answer for the chands like you.

Angel, the comments made is a direct response to each comment made by you. If they are repeated, they are merely the explanations to reasons why some of your arguments, which you have repeated, (even if they have ready been clearly proven to inaccurate), are wrong. There is no malice intended and they are not plucked out of the air but directly from the cases and political statement made at the time.

The referedendum on children was suppose to happen ages ago. Sadly, in my opinion, I do not see this happening for some time. Is it due to go ahead in October with the other two referedendums? (on Tribunals and Judges salary)

I see a lot of problems on the text for the government(for which I would support a child's clause, especially one on like the un convention on children). Why do I say that? State don't want to commit themselves to more public expenditure provided by the Constitution . see cases like Sinnott v Min for Education 2001, TD v Minister for Education 2001 (Supreme Court) The State, have not exactly being brilliant in their duty under article 42 in protecting children (eg Catholic church scandal, hse care, ) To put bluntly, the less the government has a responsibilty on matters, in this new neo liberal political environment, the better, in the eyes of any government. (that's wrong morally and ethically of course)


Unemployment figures? Far too high for comfort - I hope you don't insinuate that I am suggesting immigrants are some how responsible, because I don't. I do not see why you are laughing about that. Would you argee though, that the immigrant would be in a worse off position, as politicans won't be to bothered if they are not politically active? I have heard many immigrants complain about this.

Crime and Citizenship. First of all, what is so funny with what was said? Your question about it though is a good one. That is a good point. In my opinion, reasons for refusal like minor road offences that are not dangerous driving should not be grounds for refusal. Neither should the fact that you were in court but was proven innocent, or even got off on a techincality or the guard or dpp did not bother to press charges. We have a traditional fundamental princple that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Minister ignores this.

But I have already stated before, that the previous government rarely refused on these basis in the past. Its only in the last few years in light of the economy. Again, its a policy and administrative defintion and not legal /statutory. THe legislation does not defined good character and there is little case law here, the uk or in other common law jurisdictions. the best bet it simply stay out of trouble.

As for rates, the department puts these figures up on their site annually, so you might find them if you look hard.

Comments made about you are simply on the basis of what you have said here. its very hard to disagree with them. So yes, silence would be a good idea when you don't take too kind to home truths (solely based on what you said)

Social welfare, they for the first time ask people what social they are claiming for last 3 years.better off being honest as failure to disclose will result in automatic refusal when they investigate. the ones that i have highlighted previously, bar child benefit, then to be enough to refuse citizenship. that is not to say however, that after a full and proper consideration of a person's case that people and their time in Ireland and in light of the current economy those people will be refused under Shatter. But, Shatter's politics in general are based on Fine Gael ethos, maybe a bit more unstanding though. People who have spent more time on social than working will unlikely do to well. So people should always provide more evidence than asked to prove that the person truely integrated into society, eg membership of clubs and voluntary groups.

First time in history you ever wrote a good stuff, Moath go luath agus Abaile.

Ah its take becaue it met with your liking of what you want the world to be?

You shall see, I have been pretty accurate with alot of what I have said. If you did not act the bollox and ceased with the persecution complex alot quicker, you would have got all your answers very very very quickly


I know now what to do in the future. when making a statement of fact or confirm what the law says, i will put in brackets that it is such. and when its an opinion do likewise, it will look like i am treating ye like children, but there you go