ca.funke wrote:Quite an unbelievable thing going on there, for many reasons.
As per the article, the -effectively deported- Irish children can return to the state as soon as they´re old enough to do so on their own.
When they return from several years of growing up in slums in Brazil or the poverty in Nigeria, the likelihood of them becoming taxpayers rather than social-welfare claimers are much lower than if they were availed of a proper education back in their _home_ country.
Very soon, probably already now, Ireland will see an exodus of residents, Irish and Foreigners alike. The Irish government´s emphasis should be on attracting people from all walks of live to live in Ireland, not scaring them away.
Last but not least I´m thinking of the "European Convention on Human Rights", which conveys a "respect for private and family life". (Has this been taken to Strasbourg yet?)
A solution for all those reversely discriminated against would be to move to another European country. Obviously that is not always feasible, however Northern Ireland is never VERY far away. This may still be a better option compared to deportation. And -depending on the numbers- the British government may be induced to have a word with the Irish (or just silently welcome new taxpayers...?).
The problems with using Strasbourg are two fold.
Firstly, the applicant needs a lot of money to take the case there.
Secondly, although the Irish Institutes must have regard to the ECHR, it is not fully and completely incorportated into Irish law (though Fundamental charter, which is basically the same, is - load of confusion with how ECHR is incorporated - the Irish way)
More to the point though, the ECHR and Article 8 arguement is a double edged sword. States are allowed to impose immigration rules without interference where there is a legitimate aim, something the courts may uphold. The decision needs to be proportionate.
The government, whom ever it will be, most certaintly will not want "all walks of life" coming here. At most, its people with large pockets of money ready to invest. The reality is that those who do come, will have little problems with getting in legally, as oppose to the hostile reception asylum seekers (who are branded as effective economic migrants) will get. There is no point rewarding those who can safely return to their countries and should have applied for visas like anyone else, when the country is simply not able to give them a job or at worse provide for them on social welfare (honestly, how many would get a job now no matter how well trained they are?)
The problems with this, is the delays it takes to process claims that are not vulnerable to judicial reviews. The courts are putting a halt to frivoulous claims now, so there is no excuse from the RAT etc. Get the decisions heard quickly but within the confindes of fairness. Same for ltr/sp but there, there needs to be a duty of care as to potential future probelms eg Zimbabwe or Burma (Nigeria is hardly going to explode anytime soon) With this in mind, it won't give the applicant the opportunity to start families and connections as occurs now, which, is quite natural and normal after spending so long here.
I can't see how an exdous of people are going to go. Its not like the 1980's where there were jobs/places etc available in Australia, UK, Canada, US. Its not really the case now. Unless they are prepared to pick up the various dialects of the Chinese language, they might have problems
Although contraversial, if the Irish parent was that bothered, he/she would ensure that the children stay here in Ireland, regardless of the other parent, or go elsewhere in Europe
With regard to the newspaper article, I don't wish to sound pedantic but a few issues need to be raised.
1. the paper refers the case to an "appeal". THis is incorrect. Judicial Review is not an appeal per se. It is a review on the State's decision makers as to whether proper procedures and law was considered. Whether EVERYTHING put before the decision maker was considered and reasons given, which may not be interfereable by a court (Constitutional rights are not absolute as we always keep hearing), are proportionate and meet with the "common good" (whatever that is)
The reason why the case takes so short is because the courts have been consistent (sadly, no use to the applicant on this issue) Where submissions made regarding the family at the time of the application for leave to remain?????? Was it the asylum decision as oppose to an application on the family that was being considered?
Its odd here, it seems that the marriage took place long before the deportation order (one factor looked at by the ECHR cases) Also sounds odd as it clearly does not indicate the genuine obstacles for the Irish citizen. Seems an awful lot of inconsistencies to 4-5 cases I am aware of or heard about.
