Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
More fascist propaganda from the BNP and its sympathizers.
astartes wrote:More fascist propaganda from the BNP and its sympathizers.
The majority of rejected spouse residency applications under EU mobility rights involves spouses of non-African nationality-- Eastern European, US, Japanese, Korean. The arguments in the article you quoted are representative of the chauvinism and beloved which informs the attitude of the Irish DoJ towards non-EU spouses. The basic argument brought by them to the ECJ was along the lines of Ireland being "taken over by foreigners" --quite telling of the true motivations behind their violations of EU law. The ECJ ruling alludes to this attitude in its formulation.
Ireland has no basis to complain about immigration of EU citizens, which involves rights for their spouses under a EU treaty which the RoI has signed. It should be mentioned that a very large number of Irish nationals live in other EU countries, and that a vast Irish immigration is present in the US. There is a large number of Irish nationals who are in the US illegally, some of them involved with crime.
Double standards are not acceptable.
Ireland is free to pursue an anti-European closed borders policy, provided that it first exits the European Union.
Regarding fears about fertility rates etc (subtly implied in the article you quoted), it should be pointed out that immigrants to Ireland (most of whom are Eastern European rather than African) have lower fertility rates than the Irish population at large. Ireland had one of the highest fertility rates among "Caucasian" populations for the past 60 years, which explains the vastness of the Irish emigration during that period. Irish families with 5 or more siblings are quite common in the RoI.
In all fairness dsab85, I don't know who this guy astartes is but he does seem to have a point. The article he commented on comes across as dearly beloved. Here's from that article:dsab85 wrote:astartes, please do us all a favour and shut up with your crap, and stop spamming the whole Irish board with your nonsense. Complete pain in the back you are... get a life, or at least try to get on with your current one.
And if you don't like it, then leave...but just stop putting up these silly messages. (and btw... no, I am not Irish but one of the previously affected EU citizens)
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/20 ... -mugs.htmlIt is interesting to note that, to illustrate its piece, the BBC shows the hands of a white couple (above), as does the RTE news report embedded by Hibernia girl. Yet, all the appellants were black Africans. Also of interest is that, although this is an EU judgement and applies thus to the UK (and any other member state), the British print media has not reported the story.
More fascist propaganda from the BNP and its sympathizers.astartes wrote:
1500 cases is a small number, so why does the Irish Govt make such a fuss and issue deportation threats ? It seems from the above that Irish people's families are treated differently from those of other Europeans.THE DEPARTMENT of Justice is to review the cases of more than 1,500 spouses of EU citizens who were refused residency rights on the basis that they were non-EU nationals.
This follows a ruling by the European Court of Justice which found the Government should not prevent spouses of EU citizens who are not themselves EU citizens from living in the Republic.
The ruling should provide residency rights to significant numbers of non-EU national spouses, who have been served with "intent to deport" notices by the Department of Justice. It will also force the Government to amend a 2006 regulation stipulating that non-EU nationals married to EU citizens must live in another member state before moving to Ireland.
It will not affect Irish citizens married to non-EU nationals.
None of the spouses issued with "notice of intent to deport" orders is married to an Irish citizen, but to a citizen of other EU states.
All those American and Russian, Ukrainian spouses are such a threat.The Government, which was supported by several other EU states including Britain and Denmark in the case, had argued that its regulation was necessary to control immigration into the EU due to "strong pressure of migration".It warned that providing non- EU spouses of EU citizens with residency rights would have serious consequences for EU states by bringing about a "great increase" in the amount of people able to gain residency.
Thanks for clarifying. Treating Irish people either better or worse than other Europeans is unacceptable. It doesn't matter who is being discriminated against (Irish or non Irish).scrudu wrote:Martind: The reasons that all articles refer to the fact that this only affects "other" EU citizens and their spouses (while technically incorrect, as Irish citizens who have been exercising their treaty rights elsewhere within the EU should also be affected) and does not change current Irish legislation which governs how the spouses of Irish citizens are treated.
The article says that only spouses of non-Irish citizens have received deportation threats. Maybe the Irish Times is confused ? Or maybe Irish people don't enter marriages of convenience ?You incorrectly surmise that Irish citizens and their familys are "treated better" than other EU citizens. You are very incorrect. The spouses of Irish citizens have absolultely no right under current Irish law to reside with their Irish spouses in Ireland. This Court Casee which will cause a change to Irish interpretation of the Directive (and to Irish law as a matter of course) will mean that non-EU spouses of other EU citizens will have one again more rights than the non-EU spouses of Irish citizens.
Were they the only spouses issued with deportation threats ? It does sound strange that someone married to a EU citizen should be deported, unless the state can prove that it was a marriage of convenience. Was that proven in any of these cases ?If you read the court case, you will see why these people were issued with Deportation orders. The 4 applicants (non-EU spouses) were all failed asylum seekers. It is the normal process of any country to issue deportation orders to any person who has exhausted the Asylum seeker (and appeals) process. What do you suggest should have happened?
The article, quite rightly in my opinion, doesn't make any reference to non-EU spouses of Irish citizens as they remain unaffected by this ruling (exception as explained in my last post). To discuss the situation Irish citizens and their non-EU spouses find themselves in, would be to detract attention from the topic at hand, i.e. the effect that this ruling by the ECJ will have on non-EU spouses of other EU citizens. And yes, non-EU spouses of Irish citizens have received deportation orders on the basis that they were not entitled to stay in the country on the basis of their marriage to an Irish citizen. Please don't confuse the situation by dropping in references to "marriages of convenience". This is a seperate matter altogether and remains unchanged by the ECJ ruling. The marriages of non-EU spouses to other EU citizens were never deemd to be "marriages of convenience", but by Irish law, the incorrect interpretation of the EU directive, these non-EU spouses were not entitled to residency on the basis of their marriage to the EU citizen.martinb wrote:The article says that only spouses of non-Irish citizens have received deportation threats. Maybe the Irish Times is confused ? Or maybe Irish people don't enter marriages of convenience ?
No, but it was this group you were referring to in your post. I was responding to your post.martinb wrote:Were they the only spouses issued with deportation threats ?
Considering what Irish law states in it's transposition of the EU directive, it doesn't sound strange at all. I believe it to be an incorrect transposition of EU law, as does the ECJ, but that was the law for the last 2-3 years. It was on the basis of this law (which stated that the couple must firstly reside in another EU state before coming to Ireland) that many non-EU spouses of EU citizens were denied residency. It was the law remember, incorrect or not.martinb wrote:It does sound strange that someone married to a EU citizen should be deported, unless the state can prove that it was a marriage of convenience. Was that proven in any of these cases ?
I'm not sure where you get idea from. Please provide quotes from any of my posts where I show sympathy for the Irish Government and Immigration policy here? I just do not feel the need to voice my opinions in each post for each new poster. I am simply responding to the posts that went before. Please do not try to read into my motives based on my posts. My posts speak for themselves. I have been opposed to the policies of the DoJ, the former and current Minsters for Justice, and INIS for quite a long time.martinb wrote:Again, you sound like a defender of the Irish government, which I do not understand.
I should hope that you do. I imagine the vast majority of them were. But no-one has ever said that they were marriages of convenience. Again, you are mixing up two issues here. Read my first point regarding this.martinb wrote:Also, I have trouble believing that 1500 people were all in marriages of convenience.
MartinD, I think we can all do without your patronizing tone...martind wrote:Wow. You seem to be better informed than the Irish times, and very knowledgeable of Irish politics.
Unusual for a simple immigrant.