ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Is Ireland Such a Great Place (RANT)

Forum to discuss all things Blarney | Ireland immigration

Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator

brownbonno
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:02 pm
Netherlands

Post by brownbonno » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:41 pm

Well,just allow the Irish(government) to remain in a paradise of ignorance.
A recent case in the UK was ruled againt the UK immigration services-COA is an impediment to marriage(Article 12 ECHR).If the Irish are planning a new Immigration bill that will compel people to report intention to marry to them,then they are work behind the clock.
Knowledge is Power

Platinum
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: London-ish, UK

Post by Platinum » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:02 pm

Get your facts right.
I would love to get my facts right, runie80. Where in my post did I state a fact that needs correction?

While I'm at it, where in my post did I say this?
they Invited all New EU after joining to help them...
or this?
Ireland want to help eastren europeans

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:16 pm

Platinum wrote:
Get your facts right.
I would love to get my facts right, runie80. Where in my post did I state a fact that needs correction?

While I'm at it, where in my post did I say this?
they Invited all New EU after joining to help them...
or this?
Ireland want to help eastren europeans
Your following quote gave me that idea
Let's also not forget that when the new countries joined the EU a couple of years ago, Ireland was among one of the few countries who allowed citizens of the new members in without restrictions.

Appologies if i missunderstood that. But i thought you were suggesting that Irish government is very pro Immigrants and have a very good record towards Immingrants.

I am sorry i misunderstood

archigabe
Moderator
Posts: 1238
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:59 am
Location: Dublin

Post by archigabe » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:17 pm

walrusgumble wrote: ARTICLE 8
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
Walrusgrumble, I remembered reading the European Fundamental Rights regulations, and something about what you wrote struck me as being weird...Your article 8 is completely off.
what's your agenda here?

Here's the real European Charter of Fundamental rights
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/c ... edoms.html

Article 7
Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8
Protection of personal data

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

Article 9
Right to marry and right to found a family

The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:32 pm

Great Find archigabe

Excellent Info !

microlab
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:43 pm

Post by microlab » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:41 am

Walrusgumble
as a national, i assure you, immigration is not the only area where all civil servants and governments have been late dealing with. we irish are not as prompt putting eu directives into effect, check out many eu case law.
i am not born irish by the way, just by my irish parents.
and i aint irish. (scottish)

walrusgumble
BANNED
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:30 am
Location: ireland

Post by walrusgumble » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:58 pm

microlab wrote:Walrusgumble
as a national, i assure you, immigration is not the only area where all civil servants and governments have been late dealing with. we irish are not as prompt putting eu directives into effect, check out many eu case law.
i am not born irish by the way, just by my irish parents.
and i aint irish. (scottish)

if off, i was born in scotland , so = eu national. secondly, of irish parents i can also clam irish nationality, i share an irish name, speak the irish language (forced by the way) many scots are irish by decent. so i feel i am irish.

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:07 pm

walrusgumble wrote:
microlab wrote:Walrusgumble
as a national, i assure you, immigration is not the only area where all civil servants and governments have been late dealing with. we irish are not as prompt putting eu directives into effect, check out many eu case law.
i am not born irish by the way, just by my irish parents.
and i aint irish. (scottish)

if off, i was born in scotland , so = eu national. secondly, of irish parents i can also clam irish nationality, i share an irish name, speak the irish language (forced by the way) many scots are irish by decent. so i feel i am irish.
YOU have been VOTED the most CONTROVERSIAL figure of the year !

and dont think about it seriously :lol: OR may be you should :shock:

Definately helps me undersatnding Micheal Mc Dowel :)

walrusgumble
BANNED
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:30 am
Location: ireland

Post by walrusgumble » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:31 pm

archigabe wrote:
walrusgumble wrote: ARTICLE 8
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
Walrusgrumble, I remembered reading the European Fundamental Rights regulations, and something about what you wrote struck me as being weird...Your article 8 is completely off.
what's your agenda here?

Here's the real European Charter of Fundamental rights
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/c ... edoms.html

Article 7
Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8
Protection of personal data

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

Article 9
Right to marry and right to found a family

The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

?? hold your horses my learned friend.
i was refering to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect of family and private life), came into law in 1956ish.by the way that fine piece of legislation you mentioned is might not yet be in law. it was meant to be incorporated into the european constitution 3 years ago, but as ye know, france and co rejected the consitution.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5 ... nglais.pdf

unfortunatley, article 8.2 has been used in some cases (please do not think i am trying to scare any of ye, i am sure and i hope it does not effect ye):

Article 8 provides the right to respect for private and family life. The concept of ‘family’ in the context of Article 8 is wide and includes spouses, children (whether legitimate or illegitimate), and relatives in the ascending line, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles and even foster parents, provided the emotional ties between family members can be shown to be very strong. In relation to children, even natural fathers who have had little or no contact with their children since their birth can enjoy a right to family life with those children. (if the european ct did not intrepret "family unit" in a wide way, it would casue serious problems as art 41 of the irish constitution bases family on marriage) Although Article 8 is particularly important in the case of removal or refusal of admission of a spouse or parents (or other family member) of an individual who has a right of residence in the eu, there are two important notes of caution:

Even though there is a right to respect for family life this, in principle, does not extend to a right to respect for the choice of marital or family home. Where there is an alternative country in which the spouses/family can reside and there are no ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to relocation and settlement there, or where a person subject to immigration control could return to the country of origin and obtain entry clearance as a family member in the ordinary way without risk or excessive delay, declining residence in a certain eu state may not amount to an interference with the right to respect for family life.

Unlike Article 3 of the convention (prohibition on torture and ill treatment/punishment), the protection of the right to respect for private and family life is not absolute. Interferences can be justified in law provided that the interference is prescribed by law, in the pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate. Any decision involving Article 8 therefore includes a sometimes difficult balancing act between the different interests involved.

so for instance if someone has eg an irish born child.. or is married to an eu citizen the government would seriously need to consider the best interst of the child to have the non eu parent to be with them and also have consideration for the eu spouse right to have their spouse with them and help them support their child. alot of you have been allowed to legal reside in this state prior to marriage. it would be unimaginable for the department to be allowed to refuse you.

the "policy issue" referred earlier amy have been created where one does not have the permission to remain in the state prior to marriage. the problem for some people may lie where they were not in permited to remain in the state for reason of being refused asylum, or section 3 application for permission to remain on humanitarian basis, or a deportation order may have been made against them or the minister decided he would make one, or where there intial permission to remain had expired.

anyway most of ye have an eu1 form application, so no point worrying over article 8 the high ct case. like i said best of luck, hopefully after all this hardship ye will finally be allowed to make the best of yourselves in this country. and for a note to the people whoo have recieved dearly beloved comments... ignore the lovey. most of them are idle slacker idiots, whom seem to have forgotten their uncles, aunts etc stories of their problems when they went to the uk or usa 20 or so years ago

microlab
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:43 pm

Post by microlab » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:44 pm

Walrusgumbles questios few months back.
hi there, i have a question to ask, with regard to eu1 forms

two weeks ago i completed an eu 1 form with all the relevant documents enclosed. this was sent with a covering letter which ask for the passports to be sent back as soon as possible (i heard the dept normally send them back on request) the covering letter stated clearly that it would be very helpful if they could be sent back by the 20th of this month as they are needed. we have received the letter/notice from the dept which acknowledged the receipt of the application.

i am asking, how long would it tak for the passports to be returned if requested back/ if i send a registered letter to the dept which address in burgh quay should it be?

eu treaty rights section or acknowledgement section or repatriation section? (i know it should prob be eu section but the last one, all thou prob wrong place, are quicker in acting)

thanks for reading
can any one tell me the difference between the various residency stamps, eg stamp 1,2,student and 4.

is stamp 4 the best one in that you get residency without the need for a work permit.

if a student who is allowed to work part time, marries someone with a stamp 4 residency, and married in ireland, can they change their stamp. what is best stamp toget (ideally to stay without need for work permit) how do you go about it, what documents do you need,bar the obvious of marriage cert, evidence of living together, evidence of one's employment.

these people are from pakistan who have been previously have and still have legal residency. just student wishes to improve status, and later possibly naturalise/citizen. he has degree in it area doing phd or masters now (not sure which) and has been here for over 5 years.


And suddenly he has such an insight into workings of DOJ


know many of you fine people are frustrated with the actions of the doj, and rightly so. although this is no excuse, immigration and the rate it has reached in this country is unprecedent. i know you dont want to hear this but to the department this is a new thing. i know from a professional basis that dealing with doj is like pulling teeth out with a plyer. even the solicitors cant get one on one contact with the dept on clients behalf. we are expected to book an appointment (prob wait 3 months) just to take 5 mins to bring our clients case to their attention.

the major problem lies in the understaffed, bad facilites and structure. look how long for instance it took the refugee act 1996 to come into effect (2000).

the dept finally got their act together by making a separate site for immigration issues. funny how these things are done near elections. it time for bodies supporting immigration issues and lawyers to demand a separate ministry for immigration issues.

as a national, i assure you, immigration is not the only area where all civil servants and governments have been late dealing with. we irish are not as prompt putting eu directives into effect, check out many eu case law.

you all know that this "need to live in another eu country" is purely a policy issue and not law. it appears the minister is of the fear that many non eu nationals try to marry "on the rush" ie shame marriages in order to avoid the regular immigration proceedures. unfortunatley it appears to be the fear for failed asylum seekers or people who have been informed that deportation orders are being drafted.
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

ITS SELF-EXPLANATORY,NO NEED TO COMMENT.

walrusgumble
BANNED
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:30 am
Location: ireland

Post by walrusgumble » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:24 am

microlab wrote:Walrusgumbles questios few months back.
hi there, i have a question to ask, with regard to eu1 forms

two weeks ago i completed an eu 1 form with all the relevant documents enclosed. this was sent with a covering letter which ask for the passports to be sent back as soon as possible (i heard the dept normally send them back on request) the covering letter stated clearly that it would be very helpful if they could be sent back by the 20th of this month as they are needed. we have received the letter/notice from the dept which acknowledged the receipt of the application.

i am asking, how long would it tak for the passports to be returned if requested back/ if i send a registered letter to the dept which address in burgh quay should it be?

eu treaty rights section or acknowledgement section or repatriation section? (i know it should prob be eu section but the last one, all thou prob wrong place, are quicker in acting)

thanks for reading
can any one tell me the difference between the various residency stamps, eg stamp 1,2,student and 4.

is stamp 4 the best one in that you get residency without the need for a work permit.

if a student who is allowed to work part time, marries someone with a stamp 4 residency, and married in ireland, can they change their stamp. what is best stamp toget (ideally to stay without need for work permit) how do you go about it, what documents do you need,bar the obvious of marriage cert, evidence of living together, evidence of one's employment.

these people are from pakistan who have been previously have and still have legal residency. just student wishes to improve status, and later possibly naturalise/citizen. he has degree in it area doing phd or masters now (not sure which) and has been here for over 5 years.


And suddenly he has such an insight into workings of DOJ


know many of you fine people are frustrated with the actions of the doj, and rightly so. although this is no excuse, immigration and the rate it has reached in this country is unprecedent. i know you dont want to hear this but to the department this is a new thing. i know from a professional basis that dealing with doj is like pulling teeth out with a plyer. even the solicitors cant get one on one contact with the dept on clients behalf. we are expected to book an appointment (prob wait 3 months) just to take 5 mins to bring our clients case to their attention.

the major problem lies in the understaffed, bad facilites and structure. look how long for instance it took the refugee act 1996 to come into effect (2000).

the dept finally got their act together by making a separate site for immigration issues. funny how these things are done near elections. it time for bodies supporting immigration issues and lawyers to demand a separate ministry for immigration issues.

as a national, i assure you, immigration is not the only area where all civil servants and governments have been late dealing with. we irish are not as prompt putting eu directives into effect, check out many eu case law.

you all know that this "need to live in another eu country" is purely a policy issue and not law. it appears the minister is of the fear that many non eu nationals try to marry "on the rush" ie shame marriages in order to avoid the regular immigration proceedures. unfortunatley it appears to be the fear for failed asylum seekers or people who have been informed that deportation orders are being drafted.
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

ITS SELF-EXPLANATORY,NO NEED TO COMMENT.

what the F*&k. first off, a mate and his wife (paskistan and she is french) asked asked me to help him out with his eu1 form a while back. why? cause he did not want throw money away on solicitors, just like ye.so i get on this site a find out a few issues like ones about how long it take, differnce between stamps , just like ye. why he ask me? god knows his english not great and he prob trust me. anyone have a problem? by the way he got sorted. the law has greatly changed on these issues since my brother and sister tried to get their spouses into the country and that was a good 5 or 6 years ago.

as for the inside knowledge, i use to work in the civil service when i left college (dept of finance for 3 years) still have mates in dept of justice so we be chatting about all this happening in the various depts. i left finance as the structure was just as bad,staff from each depts were not always helful with each other, never mind with customers/clients/people seeking help. hence the saying "dealing with them is like taking your teeth out with a plyers"i also have eu law knowledge due to business course i did. (so hense professional knowledge in the dept and when in my current business- so dont worry lads i have non national mates too who are in similar crap as ye. out of curiostiy i just want to keep up to date on all thats going on now, .

i was only giving hints of whats going on that i was aware of in the civil service and the ministers and their staff who run the departments. so no need to get P**sy when i try to explain what is actually happening in that department, why it has happened or to respond to so someone whom i am sorry but does not appear to know what article 8 of the echr is or how some case law intreprets it, in stead gets high and mighty and just rave on bout some legislation that not even put in law. anyway article 8 should have no bearing on the high ct case unless used to support why the rule infringes eu law (waiting for the on slaughter for having worked in the department, F*ck it bring it on, why conscience is clear since i left that hellhole. ye only wnat to hear what ye want to hear)

this is the first time that immigration issues have come to the fore in this state. there will be serious mistakes. eu case law in the past has shown that there have been restrictions on the right to travel and work even for eu citizens. they had a 3 month limit in order to find work without relying on state benefit in order to remain in another state.

as already stated if article 8 of echr was referred, it may sometimes be difficult for a non eu national to rely on it.

each eu state has a soverign right to make their own laws and policies so long as its means are proportional and dont infringe eu law. artilce 8.2 provides that if a state has a genuine reason article 8 may not apply. you know well that each state in the eu will ensure that their people are protected, its citizens will be given priority. if an piece of eu legisation comes into law via a directive, the eu gives the member state discretion on how to implement it into domestic law, so long as the core element of the new rule doesnt enfringes ones rights under eu law, its implementation may be okay if some restrictions are made, hence the high ct challenge. regulations on the other hand are binding in its entirity and all its elements have direct effect, meaning if a piece in the regulations conflict with doemstic law, domestic law must be changed. this free movement piece from eu is a directive, i think (maybe wrong)

unfortunatley for some (hopefully ye will be okay) immigrantion to another country is not an absolute right, rules and restrictions are made. out of interest, does any other eu country that ye know, contain a similar rule as ireland at the moment?

this crazy rule about requiring one to live in another eu state is clearly a measure to ensure people who marriage of convience do not abuse the immigration procedures by skipping various steps. the state might argue that this policy is required to ensure the intergrity of the immigration system. this rule shouldnt apply to people who have been legally allowed to reside in this state and then marry an eu national. However, unfortunatly, for people who married in this state but were not legally allowed to continue residing in this state and then marry an eu1 there will lie the problems, and the state would argue this point. some of them unfortunatley might be under the suspision of the department that their marriage to an eu might be a marriage of convience. however, a geniune marrige will easily rebut this by proviving the lenght of time that they have been in a relationship for a considerable amount of time (utility bills, bank statements, landlords letter proving that they reside together) and that the marrige is in fact genuine. that is the attitude of the department/ government/ minister as ye will or have realised, not mine. ( i do sympathise with ye)

as for the chap who say i'm contraversial. you try to get clever about various comments i made on my nationality?. for all the time you have been here, if you care to look at the constitution, article 2 and 3 (and particularily the old articles 2 and 3) provided the right for irish decendents (children born of irish parents) to consider themselves as irish and the freedom to hold both an irish and british passport (for the smart asses, scotland is deemed to be part of britain). i wasnt rubbing anyones nose in, simply answering your questions , so where is the controversy?oh ye less of the mcdowell comparsions... he was on note to express dearly beloved remarks last may to the media. he does genuinely have dearly beloved motives, i certaintly do not, and further the election showed that he does not speak on behalf of this nation.

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:34 am

walrusgumble

U stated
this crazy rule about requiring one to live in another eu state is clearly a measure to ensure people who marriage of convience do not abuse the immigration procedures by skipping various steps. the state might argue that this policy is required to ensure the intergrity of the immigration system. this rule shouldnt apply to people who have been legally allowed to reside in this state and then marry an eu national. However, unfortunatly, for people who married in this state but were not legally allowed to continue residing in this state and then marry an eu1 there will lie the problems, and the state would argue this point. some of them unfortunatley might be under the suspision of the department that their marriage to an eu might be a marriage of convience. however, a geniune marrige will easily rebut this by proviving the lenght of time that they have been in a relationship for a considerable amount of time (utility bills, bank statements, landlords letter proving that they reside together) and that the marrige is in fact genuine. that is the attitude of the department/ government/ minister as ye will or have realised, not mine. ( i do sympathise with ye)
[\quote]
Just tell me one thing in all the above where does the burden of proof lies ?

In all the above the burden of proof lies with the DOJ

They should be able to proof which is sham marriage and which isnt and if they treat everyone the same then the system is "BOLLOX"

Its not our duty to proove our innnocence.And we all are suffering just for the reason because they cannot get their system foul proof.

Why dont they Interview the couples they suspect ?
why dont they ask for marriage pictures and etc ?

Also if the marriage is registered in ireland and your one department "marriage department" accepts it why iteh other dosent ?
and anything else they deem to be important

Its not out fault who are married genuinly and are being suspected of sham marriages .

The truth is Irish DOJ is blaming their Incompetence at others

Thats all !

And i except NON of your reasons just for the fact because I have nothing to fear of. The only thing i feel bad about is being asked to proove my innocence.

Its like "Guilty until you prove ur innocence"

Its crazy !

walrusgumble
BANNED
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:30 am
Location: ireland

Post by walrusgumble » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:26 am

runie80 wrote:walrusgumble

U stated
this crazy rule about requiring one to live in another eu state is clearly a measure to ensure people who marriage of convience do not abuse the immigration procedures by skipping various steps. the state might argue that this policy is required to ensure the intergrity of the immigration system. this rule shouldnt apply to people who have been legally allowed to reside in this state and then marry an eu national. However, unfortunatly, for people who married in this state but were not legally allowed to continue residing in this state and then marry an eu1 there will lie the problems, and the state would argue this point. some of them unfortunatley might be under the suspision of the department that their marriage to an eu might be a marriage of convience. however, a geniune marrige will easily rebut this by proviving the lenght of time that they have been in a relationship for a considerable amount of time (utility bills, bank statements, landlords letter proving that they reside together) and that the marrige is in fact genuine. that is the attitude of the department/ government/ minister as ye will or have realised, not mine. ( i do sympathise with ye)
[\quote]
Just tell me one thing in all the above where does the burden of proof lies ?

In all the above the burden of proof lies with the DOJ

They should be able to proof which is sham marriage and which isnt and if they treat everyone the same then the system is "BOLLOX"

Its not our duty to proove our innnocence.And we all are suffering just for the reason because they cannot get their system foul proof.

Why dont they Interview the couples they suspect ?
why dont they ask for marriage pictures and etc ?

Also if the marriage is registered in ireland and your one department "marriage department" accepts it why iteh other dosent ?
and anything else they deem to be important

Its not out fault who are married genuinly and are being suspected of sham marriages .

The truth is Irish DOJ is blaming their Incompetence at others

Thats all !

And i except NON of your reasons just for the fact because I have nothing to fear of. The only thing i feel bad about is being asked to proove my innocence.

Its like "Guilty until you prove ur innocence"

Its crazy !
you are correct and that will or should be brought up in the high court case.

just one thing though, these are not my reasons, its the departments. you can accept or reject them all you want, the reality is, is that this is what is happening, and will continue to happen until it is challenged by the court.

even if the rule stays it might be easy to prove that their is a geniune relationship by providing the department with evidence that one resides together with their soon to be spouse for a considerable amount of time. there the applicant making the eu1 form is discharging the burden of proof that they are required to show.

by the way, were many of ye guys and girls legally allowed to reside and work in the state at the time (and i stress at the time) you married an eu national? i predict the state will defend their stance to the hilt in situations were one should not have been legally allowed to remain in the state, never mind allowed to marry. (hope court pay no heed to it though)

brownbonno
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:02 pm
Netherlands

Post by brownbonno » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:27 am

walrusgumble,
I can't understand the defence you are putting on here.Educated guess suggests,its all off track.Thanks for your contributions any way.
Knowledge is Power

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:40 am

walrusgumble wrote:
runie80 wrote:walrusgumble

U stated
this crazy rule about requiring one to live in another eu state is clearly a measure to ensure people who marriage of convience do not abuse the immigration procedures by skipping various steps. the state might argue that this policy is required to ensure the intergrity of the immigration system. this rule shouldnt apply to people who have been legally allowed to reside in this state and then marry an eu national. However, unfortunatly, for people who married in this state but were not legally allowed to continue residing in this state and then marry an eu1 there will lie the problems, and the state would argue this point. some of them unfortunatley might be under the suspision of the department that their marriage to an eu might be a marriage of convience. however, a geniune marrige will easily rebut this by proviving the lenght of time that they have been in a relationship for a considerable amount of time (utility bills, bank statements, landlords letter proving that they reside together) and that the marrige is in fact genuine. that is the attitude of the department/ government/ minister as ye will or have realised, not mine. ( i do sympathise with ye)
[\quote]
Just tell me one thing in all the above where does the burden of proof lies ?

In all the above the burden of proof lies with the DOJ

They should be able to proof which is sham marriage and which isnt and if they treat everyone the same then the system is "BOLLOX"

Its not our duty to proove our innnocence.And we all are suffering just for the reason because they cannot get their system foul proof.

Why dont they Interview the couples they suspect ?
why dont they ask for marriage pictures and etc ?

Also if the marriage is registered in ireland and your one department "marriage department" accepts it why iteh other dosent ?
and anything else they deem to be important

Its not out fault who are married genuinly and are being suspected of sham marriages .

The truth is Irish DOJ is blaming their Incompetence at others

Thats all !

And i except NON of your reasons just for the fact because I have nothing to fear of. The only thing i feel bad about is being asked to proove my innocence.

Its like "Guilty until you prove ur innocence"

Its crazy !
you are correct and that will or should be brought up in the high court case.

just one thing though, these are not my reasons, its the departments. you can accept or reject them all you want, the reality is, is that this is what is happening, and will continue to happen until it is challenged by the court.

even if the rule stays it might be easy to prove that their is a geniune relationship by providing the department with evidence that one resides together with their soon to be spouse for a considerable amount of time. there the applicant making the eu1 form is discharging the burden of proof that they are required to show.

by the way, were many of ye guys and girls legally allowed to reside and work in the state at the time (and i stress at the time) you married an eu national? i predict the state will defend their stance to the hilt in situations were one should not have been legally allowed to remain in the state, never mind allowed to marry. (hope court pay no heed to it though)
At the end of the day the Truth is you cannot have a 100% foul proof system no matter what.People who are committed to cheat will always find their way through
If you need examples

see politicians
see social welfare system
See the tax documents of rich people in this country
see the people making money on houses cheating the system
See the ammount of drugs you have in this country
The Shootings



But here the important thing is where you draw the line. Currently the line is Drawn to affect everyone. Technicall that line should only be effecting Sham marriages and not everyone

flyboy
Member of Standing
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: Geneva / Lausanne,CH
Switzerland

Post by flyboy » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:04 am

[/quote]unfortunatley for some (hopefully ye will be okay) immigrantion to another country is not an absolute right, rules and restrictions are made. out of interest, does any other eu country that ye know, contain a similar rule as ireland at the moment?

Finland does and although Switzerland not part of the EU has similar rule regarding free movement between the EU.

Have a look at the following links:

http://www.uvi.fi/netcomm/content.asp?article=3009

Finland implemented the directive since 30 April 2007, but as Ireland non eu/eea/swiss family members of eu/eea/swiss citizens only benefit from it if they've resided with the eu/eea/swiss citizen in another member state before moving to finland - if not, they have to apply under finnish national law for entry into finland, if they resided in a 3rd country outside the EU, EEA or Switzerland.

Although the directive does not apply to Switzerland, the swiss adopts the same stance as Ireland and Finland, regarding residence in another member state for non eu/eea family members, before moving to switzerland, and staying in a member state as a tourist,short stay visits, are not taken into consideration for the purpose of residence. For those who understand french, here's the link:

http://www.bfm.admin.ch/etc/medialib/da ... 1_04_f.pdf


Good luck to all those awaiting the outcome of the court ruling.


scrudu
Senior Member
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:00 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by scrudu » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:57 pm

Wow, people calm down! Is there really a need for personal attacks? Walrusgrumble was just providing some insights and personal commentary.
ruine80 Just tell me one thing in all the above where does the burden of proof lies ? In all the above the burden of proof lies with the DOJ. They should be able to proof which is sham marriage and which isnt and if they treat everyone the same then the system is "BOLLOX"
I disagree, and I think you will find most countries immigration systems are the same. The onus to prove your relationship falls typically on the applicant. The DoJ provides some information on possible proof of relationship, but the onus is on you the applicant to prove your marriage is a "real" one. The question is not about whether the marriage is a "legal" or legally recognised (although this proof is also required), but about whether the marriage was entered into for illicit purposes, or for the purpose of avoiding/scamming the normal immigration process.
ruine80: Also if the marriage is registered in ireland and your one department "marriage department" accepts it why iteh other dosent ?
and anything else they deem to be important
For the reasons outlined above, a legally recognised marriage does not necessarily constitute a "legitimate" one. For the purposes of Immigration the marriage should be examed to ensure it isn't simply "on paper" and is in fact a real and existing one.
ruine80: Its not out fault who are married genuinly and are being suspected of sham marriages .
Absolutely, but you are not alone in this case. Everyone who applies for immigration status on the basis of marriage (whether to an EU or Irish applicant) will be subjected to scrutiny. This is the same in most other immigration systems (check out UK/AU boards for example). I am sure you can understand why. I understand your frustrations with "how" the DoJ ineptly scrutinise the marriages (e.g. basing a decision on whether you have resided in the EU as a couple), but I'm sure you can understand the need for some scrutiny of the marriage?

My husband and I had to go through a similar process (of proving the validity of our marriage) when he applied for a Spousal Residence Permit for Ireland. A Marriage certificate did not suffice, as all this proves is that we went through the legal process of marriage. If we apply to move to another country I'm sure we'll have to do the same again, i.e. provide both marriage certificate as well as proof that our marriage is still existing (residence stamps, proof of address, bills, letters, photos etc.).

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:15 pm

I didnt directed my words at anyones face

The only thing i was trying to point out was that we are not at fault here.
and we are suffering for something which is beyond normal.

I agree in uk may be the process is different but

I am sure

>>THEY DO answer their phones.

>>When they bring a new law out they Publish it and dont introduce it through "Back Door"

If residence in another EU country is mandatory why its not communicated properly to another IRISH embassies also why its not mention as a pre condition on the form.
the only way a normal person will find out will be residing here after 9 months and then recieving that refusal letter

>>You are allowed to work there once you applied for your Eu-1

>>And they Interact with applicanta to determine who is genuine and who isnt. I am sure in past there are loads and loads of people who have got through SHAM marriages

And finally for all that whos paying the penalty.
And it doesenet END here as the system is still not up to the mark.

I appologise if i offended anyone but i am just venting out my anger
which is directed at the DOJ for the fullishness and its craziness

And i have to admit i do HATE the MC dowell with passion !!
Last edited by runie80 on Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Birdy
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:18 am
Location: In Plymouth Eating Indian Food

Post by Birdy » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:18 pm

Hey guys i started this thread for a rant not fighting or finger pointing just a rant say whatever you want but a rant for the craic is all it is
Happy now in the U.K. not so happy about the Rugby

dsab85
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:44 am

Post by dsab85 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:24 pm

The closer the court date comes the crazier the people get it seems. :wink:

And btw... yes, Ireland is a great place to live ... just not when you marry someone from outside the EU or if you have to deal with the DOJ.

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:26 pm

ha ha ha

May be ur right !

may be we all are affraid of loosing something we dont wana loose :cry:

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:27 pm

dsab85 wrote:
And btw... yes, Ireland is a great place to live ... just not when you marry someone from outside the EU or if you have to deal with the DOJ.
I second that !

walrusgumble
BANNED
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:30 am
Location: ireland

Post by walrusgumble » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:32 pm

runie80 wrote:ha ha ha

May be ur right !

may be we all are affraid of loosing something we dont wana loose :cry:
chin up, hopefully all this hassle will be worth it when ye get those acceptane letters.

Birdy
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:18 am
Location: In Plymouth Eating Indian Food

Post by Birdy » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:36 pm

Already have my refusal :(
Happy now in the U.K. not so happy about the Rugby

runie80
Member of Standing
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by runie80 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:44 pm

walrusgumble

Thanks for giving hope

I would say hope is a DRUG ! .Where i would be without it

Thanks guys. Lets all be positive and Hope for the best !!!!

Locked
cron