RTE ONE Prime Time

[SyS]

Looks like Citizenship and Immigration is being reported on on RTEONE

[ImmigrationLawyer]

I thought this was a really good programme - fair and balanced.

[fatty patty]

There was no DoJ spokesperson in the program. Are they all busy working on those applications i wonder. Oops we made a dodo here deporting Irish citizens lets get them and their parents back here on the double otherwise there is a hefty costs on the cards.

[angelcountry]

There was no DoJ spokesperson in the program. Are they all busy working on those applications i wonder. Oops we made a dodo here deporting Irish citizens lets get them and their parents back here on the double otherwise there is a hefty costs on the cards.

I presume, some immigrant don't know their right and the barrister that, spoke did said the right thing per his comment but derail at the end, but, it's however pertinent that, the new minister will never be lured back to the days of L& O, re- olajujonu and osheku case scenario, whereby the judge has to order the return of elahanla funded by the state in that controversy decision by the INIS, the criteria for citizenship process of 5 years reckonable is also been stipulated by law, If an application for citizenship is also creating headache to most people, i think it's inevitable and unreverse am afraid, But for a barrister to ignite malice in such a manner in fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland, Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers.

We implore the state to manage immigration at a proportionate manner, not self-induce. All the best.

[knapps]

can you give a link where to watch this program

[walrusgumble]

There was no DoJ spokesperson in the program. Are they all busy working on those applications i wonder. Oops we made a dodo here deporting Irish citizens lets get them and their parents back here on the double otherwise there is a hefty costs on the cards.

I presume, some immigrant don't know their right and the barrister that, spoke did said the right thing per his comment but derail at the end, but, it's however pertinent that, the new minister will never be lured back to the days of L& O, re- olajujonu and osheku case scenario, whereby the judge has to order the return of elahanla funded by the state in that controversy decision by the INIS, the criteria for citizenship process of 5 years reckonable is also been stipulated by law, If an application for citizenship is also creating headache to most people, i think it's inevitable and unreverse am afraid, But for a barrister to ignite malice in such a manner in fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland, Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers.

We implore the state to manage immigration at a proportionate manner, not self-induce. All the best.

Finally a poster on the Pro side, citing proper sources (Chalmers)

The barrister, only pointed out the potentials, he never gave his own personal view. Whether you like it or not, these considerations have been taken into consideration by governments at the Council of Ministers. There is no malice on his part.

You are also forgetting that it is not like the Irish Government and Court, whether or better or for worst, were mostly behind those decisions. It is what emotivated many in the Citizenship admendment in 2004. But yes, the Minister can't go back to those days.

There was no derailment. What do you mean he said the "right things"? Shouldn't you be more honest and say, he said all the things "you wanted him to say".

Citizenship laws can easily be amened by legislation or if neccessary a Constitutional Amendment. (for future cases)

"fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland,"

What common good? Do you really want to know what the common good is? I doubt it. The deportation orders were valid. EU law or any law can't apply retrospectively. Ireland was not in breach of EU law back then and EU never declared same.


"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',"

So sweet jesus, please stop misrepresenting what Bunreacht Ná hÉireann says. There are even qualifications to that provision. It refers to abortion and abortion only.

"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers."

Article 3.2 of TFEU , really? Wrong, Article 3 TFEU deals with Competence

This is what Artilce 3 TFEU says

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 199:en:PDF

You realise that Articles 20 and 21 TFEU were not considered in most of the above cases (post lison)

I would see what you mean regarding the Criminality, there is question over whether Article 27 and 28 Directive or Article 45(3) can be relied upon by non eu people, even if married to EU people - I must say, I would be inclined to believe that its possible. But no case law has shown this to be the case, yet. Therefore ECHR applies. In either case, States do have some leeway (strict under EU thougH)
Boultif v Switzerland 2001 is a ECHR case and not a EU case. ECHR is far more Member State friendly than ECJ.

But with regard to the tone of your comment, this very much does explain why I was very critical of Shatter's statement once the Zambrano case came out. He made it clear that it was not policy to give status if there is a criminal record. This is prejudicial to the right of the person to be objectively considered whether under the Boultif test in ECHR or EU base on Art 27 and 28 of Directive. Again, he should have kept his mouth shut


Chalmers does not suggest this in the way you have stated.

[koded]

can you give a link where to watch this program

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0714/primetime.html#

[angelcountry]

There was no DoJ spokesperson in the program. Are they all busy working on those applications i wonder. Oops we made a dodo here deporting Irish citizens lets get them and their parents back here on the double otherwise there is a hefty costs on the cards.

I presume, some immigrant don't know their right and the barrister that, spoke did said the right thing per his comment but derail at the end, but, it's however pertinent that, the new minister will never be lured back to the days of L& O, re- olajujonu and osheku case scenario, whereby the judge has to order the return of elahanla funded by the state in that controversy decision by the INIS, the criteria for citizenship process of 5 years reckonable is also been stipulated by law, If an application for citizenship is also creating headache to most people, i think it's inevitable and unreverse am afraid, But for a barrister to ignite malice in such a manner in fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland, Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers.

We implore the state to manage immigration at a proportionate manner, not self-induce. All the best.

Finally a poster on the Pro side, citing proper sources (Chalmers)

The barrister, only pointed out the potentials, he never gave his own personal view. Whether you like it or not, these considerations have been taken into consideration by governments at the Council of Ministers. There is no malice on his part.

You are also forgetting that it is not like the Irish Government and Court, whether or better or for worst, were mostly behind those decisions. It is what emotivated many in the Citizenship admendment in 2004. But yes, the Minister can't go back to those days.

There was no derailment. What do you mean he said the "right things"? Shouldn't you be more honest and say, he said all the things "you wanted him to say".

Citizenship laws can easily be amened by legislation or if neccessary a Constitutional Amendment. (for future cases)

"fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland,"

What common good? Do you really want to know what the common good is? I doubt it. The deportation orders were valid. EU law or any law can't apply retrospectively. Ireland was not in breach of EU law back then and EU never declared same.


"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',"

So sweet jesus, please stop misrepresenting what Bunreacht Ná hÉireann says. There are even qualifications to that provision. It refers to abortion and abortion only.

"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers."

Article 3.2 of TFEU , really? Wrong, Article 3 TFEU deals with Competence

This is what Artilce 3 TFEU says

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 199:en:PDF

You realise that Articles 20 and 21 TFEU were not considered in most of the above cases (post lison)

I would see what you mean regarding the Criminality, there is question over whether Article 27 and 28 Directive or Article 45(3) can be relied upon by non eu people, even if married to EU people - I must say, I would be inclined to believe that its possible. But no case law has shown this to be the case, yet. Therefore ECHR applies. In either case, States do have some leeway (strict under EU thougH)
Boultif v Switzerland 2001 is a ECHR case and not a EU case. ECHR is far more Member State friendly than ECJ.

But with regard to the tone of your comment, this very much does explain why I was very critical of Shatter's statement once the Zambrano case came out. He made it clear that it was not policy to give status if there is a criminal record. This is prejudicial to the right of the person to be objectively considered whether under the Boultif test in ECHR or EU base on Art 27 and 28 of Directive. Again, he should have kept his mouth shut


Chalmers does not suggest this in the way you have stated.

Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

[knapps]

i watched the program and it was good program which highlited many prevalent issues immigrants face.

Though, I do not condone the get away someone has to live in Ireland via marrying an EU person while on deportation order.

If someone is on deportation what I do not understand is how the Govt allows him/her to marry in this jurdiction.

[angelcountry]

i watched the program and it was good program which highlited many prevalent issues immigrants face.

Though, I do not condone the get away someone has to live in Ireland via marrying an EU person while on deportation order.

If someone is on deportation what I do not understand is how the Govt allows him/her to marry in this jurdiction.

Well said indeed, how they hell did they get to process marriage licence without proper vetting and the 3 month waiting time ?

Incompetency and maladministration.

[walrusgumble]

There was no DoJ spokesperson in the program. Are they all busy working on those applications i wonder. Oops we made a dodo here deporting Irish citizens lets get them and their parents back here on the double otherwise there is a hefty costs on the cards.

I presume, some immigrant don't know their right and the barrister that, spoke did said the right thing per his comment but derail at the end, but, it's however pertinent that, the new minister will never be lured back to the days of L& O, re- olajujonu and osheku case scenario, whereby the judge has to order the return of elahanla funded by the state in that controversy decision by the INIS, the criteria for citizenship process of 5 years reckonable is also been stipulated by law, If an application for citizenship is also creating headache to most people, i think it's inevitable and unreverse am afraid, But for a barrister to ignite malice in such a manner in fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland, Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers.

We implore the state to manage immigration at a proportionate manner, not self-induce. All the best.

Finally a poster on the Pro side, citing proper sources (Chalmers)

The barrister, only pointed out the potentials, he never gave his own personal view. Whether you like it or not, these considerations have been taken into consideration by governments at the Council of Ministers. There is no malice on his part.

You are also forgetting that it is not like the Irish Government and Court, whether or better or for worst, were mostly behind those decisions. It is what emotivated many in the Citizenship admendment in 2004. But yes, the Minister can't go back to those days.

There was no derailment. What do you mean he said the "right things"? Shouldn't you be more honest and say, he said all the things "you wanted him to say".

Citizenship laws can easily be amened by legislation or if neccessary a Constitutional Amendment. (for future cases)

"fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland,"

What common good? Do you really want to know what the common good is? I doubt it. The deportation orders were valid. EU law or any law can't apply retrospectively. Ireland was not in breach of EU law back then and EU never declared same.


"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',"

So sweet jesus, please stop misrepresenting what Bunreacht Ná hÉireann says. There are even qualifications to that provision. It refers to abortion and abortion only.

"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers."

Article 3.2 of TFEU , really? Wrong, Article 3 TFEU deals with Competence

This is what Artilce 3 TFEU says

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 199:en:PDF

You realise that Articles 20 and 21 TFEU were not considered in most of the above cases (post lison)

I would see what you mean regarding the Criminality, there is question over whether Article 27 and 28 Directive or Article 45(3) can be relied upon by non eu people, even if married to EU people - I must say, I would be inclined to believe that its possible. But no case law has shown this to be the case, yet. Therefore ECHR applies. In either case, States do have some leeway (strict under EU thougH)
Boultif v Switzerland 2001 is a ECHR case and not a EU case. ECHR is far more Member State friendly than ECJ.

But with regard to the tone of your comment, this very much does explain why I was very critical of Shatter's statement once the Zambrano case came out. He made it clear that it was not policy to give status if there is a criminal record. This is prejudicial to the right of the person to be objectively considered whether under the Boultif test in ECHR or EU base on Art 27 and 28 of Directive. Again, he should have kept his mouth shut


Chalmers does not suggest this in the way you have stated.

Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

[walrusgumble]

i watched the program and it was good program which highlited many prevalent issues immigrants face.

Though, I do not condone the get away someone has to live in Ireland via marrying an EU person while on deportation order.

If someone is on deportation what I do not understand is how the Govt allows him/her to marry in this jurdiction.

Well said indeed, how they hell did they get to process marriage licence without proper vetting and the 3 month waiting time ?

Incompetency and maladministration.

Ah wow, you have forgotten already. The Irish government and police have actually tried to stop this from happening, but in light of the UK House of Lords case they can't as its a breach of Article 12 of ECHR (Freedom to marry).

Also, many of these guys go to other parts of the country to get the licence. Maybe its more laid back. But again, the Marriage Registrar can't refuse the licence soley on the basis of the person's legal status. Also under Metock, if they marry EU people, that status is irrelevant for residency. So whats the point refusing them, they are not going to use scarce resources in investigating them on a basis that might lead to nothing.

In most cases, the Garda in the past whether marriage on Irish basis or EU basis, have relied upon the wifes running to the gardai telling them that the marriage was a sham, or that they are simply ended the marriage. This, is must point out, has sometimes being on the basis of being complete cows after a heated fight and while the marriage and relationship might have being genuine, they just blut the sham bit as a handy way of revenge or to get rid of the non eu person.

What evidence do you have that people have got married under 3 months? Any state marriage that occurs under the three months, unless a court order is obtained, is not valid under Irish law.

God you just can't win with some people. I recall people on this site going mental over the provision in the immigration bill on banning marriages without first seeking consent from the justice minister first

So your basis of incompetence on that basis is unfounded.

The solution is to speed up the decision making in asylum cases and subsidiary protection/leave to remain. But in fairness, this is difficult as its research intensive and in fairness to the immigrant, the system is devoid of good decision makers. Quality needs to be assured at the same time to protect the immgirant, even if their claim is frivlous.

Solution, but be to adopt the British System where all the above decisions are considered together at a hearing. But this time, only allow decision makers who have spent up to one - two years in training and research before being allowed anywhere near a tribunal. Fines should be imposed on lawyers who bring extremely frivolous claims to the High Court that is properly defined as such. Ireland, unlike Ireland 7 years ago has now provided a vast body of case law so there should be no excuses for the lawyers. (A period of 2 years should be suspended upon entering the act, as its likely that genuine questions might need to be put before the court)

[angelcountry]

i watched the program and it was good program which highlited many prevalent issues immigrants face.

Though, I do not condone the get away someone has to live in Ireland via marrying an EU person while on deportation order.

If someone is on deportation what I do not understand is how the Govt allows him/her to marry in this jurdiction.

Well said indeed, how they hell did they get to process marriage licence without proper vetting and the 3 month waiting time ?

Incompetency and maladministration.

Ah wow, you have forgotten already. The Irish government and police have actually tried to stop this from happening, but in light of the UK House of Lords case they can't as its a breach of Article 12 of ECHR (Freedom to marry).

Also, many of these guys go to other parts of the country to get the licence. Maybe its more laid back. But again, the Marriage Registrar can't refuse the licence soley on the basis of the person's legal status. Also under Metock, if they marry EU people, that status is irrelevant for residency. So whats the point refusing them, they are not going to use scarce resources in investigating them on a basis that might lead to nothing.

In most cases, the Garda in the past whether marriage on Irish basis or EU basis, have relied upon the wifes running to the gardai telling them that the marriage was a sham, or that they are simply ended the marriage. This, is must point out, has sometimes being on the basis of being complete cows after a heated fight and while the marriage and relationship might have being genuine, they just blut the sham bit as a handy way of revenge or to get rid of the non eu person.

What evidence do you have that people have got married under 3 months? Any state marriage that occurs under the three months, unless a court order is obtained, is not valid under Irish law.

God you just can't win with some people. I recall people on this site going mental over the provision in the immigration bill on banning marriages without first seeking consent from the justice minister first

So your basis of incompetence on that basis is unfounded.

The solution is to speed up the decision making in asylum cases and subsidiary protection/leave to remain. But in fairness, this is difficult as its research intensive and in fairness to the immigrant, the system is devoid of good decision makers. Quality needs to be assured at the same time to protect the immgirant, even if their claim is frivlous.

Solution, but be to adopt the British System where all the above decisions are considered together at a hearing. But this time, only allow decision makers who have spent up to one - two years in training and research before being allowed anywhere near a tribunal. Fines should be imposed on lawyers who bring extremely frivolous claims to the High Court that is properly defined as such. Ireland, unlike Ireland 7 years ago has now provided a vast body of case law so there should be no excuses for the lawyers. (A period of 2 years should be suspended upon entering the act, as its likely that genuine questions might need to be put before the court)

Oh come on man, you said earlier that, if they want to get married before three month they have to get court order otherwise they have to wait for three month and during that waiting period, no registrar does not check your status before any booking so why do you put down the virtue of incompetency stated ?

It should be repudiated immediately mate.

How do you create a locus standi ? l.o.l

[angelcountry]

I presume, some immigrant don't know their right and the barrister that, spoke did said the right thing per his comment but derail at the end, but, it's however pertinent that, the new minister will never be lured back to the days of L& O, re- olajujonu and osheku case scenario, whereby the judge has to order the return of elahanla funded by the state in that controversy decision by the INIS, the criteria for citizenship process of 5 years reckonable is also been stipulated by law, If an application for citizenship is also creating headache to most people, i think it's inevitable and unreverse am afraid, But for a barrister to ignite malice in such a manner in fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland, Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers.

We implore the state to manage immigration at a proportionate manner, not self-induce. All the best.

Finally a poster on the Pro side, citing proper sources (Chalmers)

The barrister, only pointed out the potentials, he never gave his own personal view. Whether you like it or not, these considerations have been taken into consideration by governments at the Council of Ministers. There is no malice on his part.

You are also forgetting that it is not like the Irish Government and Court, whether or better or for worst, were mostly behind those decisions. It is what emotivated many in the Citizenship admendment in 2004. But yes, the Minister can't go back to those days.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY
Yes citizenship of any child then base on either one of the parent must lawfully resident in the state three out of four years proceeding the birth of such child.

There was no derailment. What do you mean he said the "right things"? Shouldn't you be more honest and say, he said all the things "you wanted him to say".

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY

Non Sense.

Citizenship laws can easily be amened by legislation or if neccessary a Constitutional Amendment. (for future cases)

"fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland,"

What common good? Do you really want to know what the common good is? I doubt it. The deportation orders were valid. EU law or any law can't apply retrospectively. Ireland was not in breach of EU law back then and EU never declared same.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY

Stop beggings next time, with your advise for minister.


"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',"

So sweet jesus, please stop misrepresenting what Bunreacht Ná hÉireann says. There are even qualifications to that provision. It refers to abortion and abortion only.

"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers."

Article 3.2 of TFEU , really? Wrong, Article 3 TFEU deals with Competence

This is what Artilce 3 TFEU says

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 199:en:PDF

You realise that Articles 20 and 21 TFEU were not considered in most of the above cases (post lison)

ANGLECOUNTRY SAYS

I dont think you read properly because i have the european law textbook beside me here to compare my argument not what you think will carry the day.

I would see what you mean regarding the Criminality, there is question over whether Article 27 and 28 Directive or Article 45(3) can be relied upon by non eu people, even if married to EU people - I must say, I would be inclined to believe that its possible. But no case law has shown this to be the case, yet. Therefore ECHR applies. In either case, States do have some leeway (strict under EU thougH)
Boultif v Switzerland 2001 is a ECHR case and not a EU case. ECHR is far more Member State friendly than ECJ.

But with regard to the tone of your comment, this very much does explain why I was very critical of Shatter's statement once the Zambrano case came out. He made it clear that it was not policy to give status if there is a criminal record. This is prejudicial to the right of the person to be objectively considered whether under the Boultif test in ECHR or EU base on Art 27 and 28 of Directive. Again, he should have kept his mouth shut


Chalmers does not suggest this in the way you have stated.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Chalmers don't have to tell me what to do, is you have to use your head when asked a question relating to social welfare and deportation of European citizen for example within case precedence from writing book contest as stop trying to cover up.


Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

Then why do your society keep on trying ?

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You said it all.

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .
ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

Then amend such cheap and stupid law and stop using section 2 subsection 2 of the non-fatal offence against a person act to cover up against immigrant under the criminal justice act, and a lot of people does not know what section 2 sub 2 contain under 1997 act.
Which mean a person fear of attack or been attack in future, then how do you ascertain that fact ?

Then why did ireland call it an ASSAULT ?

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

What case was that ? o'brien V parker or what ?
State ?

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

I DONT THINK YOU KNOW ME.

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You never answered the question rather than raving and ranting.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Defined crime and indecia of crime ?

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

You are more criminal than most of the immigrant, because when you
Manufacture cases and frame it up, your aims and objectives is ''Deportations'' isn't it Dude ?

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

I don want criminal aswell, but i want human right activist and freedom of speech in ireland.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.
ANGELCOUNTYR SAID

And what does that got to do with me ?
Check zhu and chen case 2004 and get the test of the case and sala case under article 8 of the Tfeu.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Am getting paid up till now for ballykissangel like you anyway.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Illitrate irish like you that, work as a sale assistant or otherwise unskilled laborers like you knows how to insult people but lack how to respect people which am used to insult but resist that based on lack of ''respect'' .

Next ?

[walrusgumble]

i watched the program and it was good program which highlited many prevalent issues immigrants face.

Though, I do not condone the get away someone has to live in Ireland via marrying an EU person while on deportation order.

If someone is on deportation what I do not understand is how the Govt allows him/her to marry in this jurdiction.

Well said indeed, how they hell did they get to process marriage licence without proper vetting and the 3 month waiting time ?

Incompetency and maladministration.

Ah wow, you have forgotten already. The Irish government and police have actually tried to stop this from happening, but in light of the UK House of Lords case they can't as its a breach of Article 12 of ECHR (Freedom to marry).

Also, many of these guys go to other parts of the country to get the licence. Maybe its more laid back. But again, the Marriage Registrar can't refuse the licence soley on the basis of the person's legal status. Also under Metock, if they marry EU people, that status is irrelevant for residency. So whats the point refusing them, they are not going to use scarce resources in investigating them on a basis that might lead to nothing.

In most cases, the Garda in the past whether marriage on Irish basis or EU basis, have relied upon the wifes running to the gardai telling them that the marriage was a sham, or that they are simply ended the marriage. This, is must point out, has sometimes being on the basis of being complete cows after a heated fight and while the marriage and relationship might have being genuine, they just blut the sham bit as a handy way of revenge or to get rid of the non eu person.

What evidence do you have that people have got married under 3 months? Any state marriage that occurs under the three months, unless a court order is obtained, is not valid under Irish law.

God you just can't win with some people. I recall people on this site going mental over the provision in the immigration bill on banning marriages without first seeking consent from the justice minister first

So your basis of incompetence on that basis is unfounded.

The solution is to speed up the decision making in asylum cases and subsidiary protection/leave to remain. But in fairness, this is difficult as its research intensive and in fairness to the immigrant, the system is devoid of good decision makers. Quality needs to be assured at the same time to protect the immgirant, even if their claim is frivlous.

Solution, but be to adopt the British System where all the above decisions are considered together at a hearing. But this time, only allow decision makers who have spent up to one - two years in training and research before being allowed anywhere near a tribunal. Fines should be imposed on lawyers who bring extremely frivolous claims to the High Court that is properly defined as such. Ireland, unlike Ireland 7 years ago has now provided a vast body of case law so there should be no excuses for the lawyers. (A period of 2 years should be suspended upon entering the act, as its likely that genuine questions might need to be put before the court)

Oh come on man, you said earlier that, if they want to get married before three month they have to get court order otherwise they have to wait for three month and during that waiting period, no registrar does not check your status before any booking so why do you put down the virtue of incompetency stated ?

It should be repudiated immediately mate.

How do you create a locus standi ? l.o.l

Angel, before coming on and making such statments why don't you actually educate yourself in IRISH FAMILY LAW. And then, instead of assuming your correct, actually provide proofs of your statement, or god forbid some antidotal evidence.


The Family Law Acts allow people to go to the Circuit Court to seek an exemption on the three month rule. It often happens that for some reason, the couple completely forgot to get the licence, on excpetional basis the judge will grant it. Yeah, of course you need a few quid to make the application so I can't see to many immigrants making it. To make it clear, the order simply excuses the person from having to wait 3 months. It is granted on exceptional basis. It can't be just for mere convenience. An example of where it will likely always be granted is where a dying person wants to marry someone.

As for the actual fact that people may actually go and get married and the registrar does not check up, oh of course it could happen. I never suggested that it could not happen.

All I said that if it did happen, the marriage will not be valid. All the Gardai / immigration people have to do, and they have done (they love when it happens as they don't need to give the lengthy decisions in applications to refuse) is look at the marriage registrar details on the certificate. But you are right, its highely possible that immigrants and even irish people try it, I never suggested that it don't happen. Again, simply, the marriage is not valid in law.

Maybe you should read what was said and not what you taught. Or maybe i was not clear thus causing you to misunderstand what I said. The fact that i had earlier said that there was no point refusing these marriage licences would surely show an acknowledgement that some registrars will just take everything at face value.

You said:
no registrar does not check your status before any booking so why do you put down the virtue of incompetency stated ?

It should be repudiated immediately mate.

@no register does not check your status. What? You mean no registrar will check your status. love the grammer mate. why would registrar check your status? what status? legal status? or evidence that a period of three months has elapesed since the issuing of the licence?

legal status: I have already said since metock there is no point. so what point are you trying to make? Where is the question of incompetence there? incomtence because you are not breaching the law? wow there is a first. But other than that, there is no argument from me. you are arguing with your self on that one

as for licence , you will be assured that the registrar at a wedding cermony is more than viligalent now a days with certain marriages and would dearly love to walk up to the bride and groom all dressed up to break their hearts to tell them,sorry I can't marry ye as this licence here is still witin the three month rule. and even if the marriage went ahead , the central marriage office will, when all the papers are sent to them, will be on the bandwagon to stamp the marriage as void. also the marriage registrar could face legal proceedings.

you have clearly misunderstood what i said.

There is no point in a person getting married within the three month rule. the marriage would be invalid. unless they can get an exemption before the marriage. it might even be allowed to be obtained AFTER the marriage. for marriages of the kind we are talking about, there is sweet fa of a chance in getting it.

As for people , even irish people, trying their luck to look in other cities, of course it happens. will doozie registrar take any notice? quite possibly not. But its irrelevant. The legal status of the person is not a ground for refusal. But the registrar or central registrar will not marry the people if they are seeking to marry within 3 months of the issuing of the licence unless they get a court order. they face criminal proceedings if they do. i doubt they will take the risk.

the smiley faces make you look like a village idiot if you did understand fully, what i had said earlier.

What should be repudiated immediately? It will.

Locus standi? You do realise that the words about asking the people at the cermony (assuming that there is more than 5 guests) whether there was any lawful reasons why this couple should not be married, is not used in hollywood films for the craic?

If you are that bothered, why don't you head off to god knows where (where the doozy registrar heading the cermony is ) in a wayne world/the graduate style manner and call a halt to the marriage on the basis that there's something dodgy.

[angelcountry]

Am sick and tired of your insult, what i meant is that, the registrar will check your identification and make equiries on how long you have resided in such jurisdiction, what are you talking about, you want to start another NUllity plan ?

[walrusgumble]

Finally a poster on the Pro side, citing proper sources (Chalmers)

The barrister, only pointed out the potentials, he never gave his own personal view. Whether you like it or not, these considerations have been taken into consideration by governments at the Council of Ministers. There is no malice on his part.

You are also forgetting that it is not like the Irish Government and Court, whether or better or for worst, were mostly behind those decisions. It is what emotivated many in the Citizenship admendment in 2004. But yes, the Minister can't go back to those days.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY
Yes citizenship of any child then base on either one of the parent must lawfully resident in the state three out of four years proceeding the birth of such child.

There was no derailment. What do you mean he said the "right things"? Shouldn't you be more honest and say, he said all the things "you wanted him to say".

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY

Non Sense.

Citizenship laws can easily be amened by legislation or if neccessary a Constitutional Amendment. (for future cases)

"fact fell short of common good, by saying those deported will have to find their way back to Ireland,"

What common good? Do you really want to know what the common good is? I doubt it. The deportation orders were valid. EU law or any law can't apply retrospectively. Ireland was not in breach of EU law back then and EU never declared same.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLY

Stop beggings next time, with your advise for minister.


"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',"

So sweet jesus, please stop misrepresenting what Bunreacht Ná hÉireann says. There are even qualifications to that provision. It refers to abortion and abortion only.

"Once a person marries he/she which include the right of the ''unborn'',qualify under the spouse rule article 3 {2} Tfeu, article 20 & article 20 (1) 21{1} Directive and the case of Baubast v secretary of state home department 2002 has clarify s that unless lack the basis of the contest of Akrich and Metock case, re-directive 2004/38/EC Boultif v Switzerland 2001 fall under article 28(1) Which answers the barrister contrary precedence cases on criminality. All the cases and article are from the European union post Lisbon by Damian Chalmers."

Article 3.2 of TFEU , really? Wrong, Article 3 TFEU deals with Competence

This is what Artilce 3 TFEU says

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 199:en:PDF

You realise that Articles 20 and 21 TFEU were not considered in most of the above cases (post lison)

ANGLECOUNTRY SAYS

I dont think you read properly because i have the european law textbook beside me here to compare my argument not what you think will carry the day.

I would see what you mean regarding the Criminality, there is question over whether Article 27 and 28 Directive or Article 45(3) can be relied upon by non eu people, even if married to EU people - I must say, I would be inclined to believe that its possible. But no case law has shown this to be the case, yet. Therefore ECHR applies. In either case, States do have some leeway (strict under EU thougH)
Boultif v Switzerland 2001 is a ECHR case and not a EU case. ECHR is far more Member State friendly than ECJ.

But with regard to the tone of your comment, this very much does explain why I was very critical of Shatter's statement once the Zambrano case came out. He made it clear that it was not policy to give status if there is a criminal record. This is prejudicial to the right of the person to be objectively considered whether under the Boultif test in ECHR or EU base on Art 27 and 28 of Directive. Again, he should have kept his mouth shut


Chalmers does not suggest this in the way you have stated.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Chalmers don't have to tell me what to do, is you have to use your head when asked a question relating to social welfare and deportation of European citizen for example within case precedence from writing book contest as stop trying to cover up.


Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

Then why do your society keep on trying ?

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You said it all.

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .
ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

Then amend such cheap and stupid law and stop using section 2 subsection 2 of the non-fatal offence against a person act to cover up against immigrant under the criminal justice act, and a lot of people does not know what section 2 sub 2 contain under 1997 act.
Which mean a person fear of attack or been attack in future, then how do you ascertain that fact ?

Then why did ireland call it an ASSAULT ?

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

What case was that ? o'brien V parker or what ?
State ?

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

I DONT THINK YOU KNOW ME.

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You never answered the question rather than raving and ranting.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Defined crime and indecia of crime ?

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

You are more criminal than most of the immigrant, because when you
Manufacture cases and frame it up, your aims and objectives is ''Deportations'' isn't it Dude ?

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

I don want criminal aswell, but i want human right activist and freedom of speech in ireland.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.
ANGELCOUNTYR SAID

And what does that got to do with me ?
Check zhu and chen case 2004 and get the test of the case and sala case under article 8 of the Tfeu.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Am getting paid up till now for ballykissangel like you anyway.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Illitrate irish like you that, work as a sale assistant or otherwise unskilled laborers like you knows how to insult people but lack how to respect people which am used to insult but resist that based on lack of ''respect'' .

Next ?

Bad typing is far better than getting facts and laws all arse ways or common sense. Sales assistants? ha ha ha , lets just say, secretaries are paid to do all the typing that is needed in the work place, you will have to excuse the dodgy spellings. I am sure you will agree, its not much fun using a small keypad when you have akward stumpy fingers. Your own grammer is not up to much either. and what do you do?



How, how about dealing the arguments that you have made and I have responded to. Or even, providing proofs to back up the nonsense about being a sales rep or unskilled labour.


Off crying yeah, you well able to comment on incompetence this incompetent that. Well able to slag Irish people off when it suits, but when they give you what you want, they are great (ie Shatter) Yet, when its put to you that you are wrong, you can't take the heat.

Your silence would have been better

[angelcountry]

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Chalmers don't have to tell me what to do, is you have to use your head when asked a question relating to social welfare and deportation of European citizen for example within case precedence from writing book contest as stop trying to cover up.


Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

Then why do your society keep on trying ?

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You said it all.

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .
ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

Then amend such cheap and stupid law and stop using section 2 subsection 2 of the non-fatal offence against a person act to cover up against immigrant under the criminal justice act, and a lot of people does not know what section 2 sub 2 contain under 1997 act.
Which mean a person fear of attack or been attack in future, then how do you ascertain that fact ?

Then why did ireland call it an ASSAULT ?

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

What case was that ? o'brien V parker or what ?
State ?

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

I DONT THINK YOU KNOW ME.

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You never answered the question rather than raving and ranting.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Defined crime and indecia of crime ?

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

You are more criminal than most of the immigrant, because when you
Manufacture cases and frame it up, your aims and objectives is ''Deportations'' isn't it Dude ?

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

I don want criminal aswell, but i want human right activist and freedom of speech in ireland.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.
ANGELCOUNTYR SAID

And what does that got to do with me ?
Check zhu and chen case 2004 and get the test of the case and sala case under article 8 of the Tfeu.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Am getting paid up till now for ballykissangel like you anyway.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Illitrate irish like you that, work as a sale assistant or otherwise unskilled laborers like you knows how to insult people but lack how to respect people which am used to insult but resist that based on lack of ''respect'' .

Next ?

Bad typing is far better than getting facts and laws all arse ways or common sense. Sales assistants? ha ha ha , lets just say, secretaries are paid to do all the typing that is needed in the work place, you will have to excuse the dodgy spellings. I am sure you will agree, its not much fun using a small keypad when you have akward stumpy fingers. Your own grammer is not up to much either. and what do you do?



How, how about dealing the arguments that you have made and I have responded to. Or even, providing proofs to back up the nonsense about being a sales rep or unskilled labour.


Off crying yeah, you well able to comment on incompetence this incompetent that. Well able to slag Irish people off when it suits, but when they give you what you want, they are great (ie Shatter) Yet, when its put to you that you are wrong, you can't take the heat.

Your silence would have been better

I have resided in Ireland for over a decade, most of you that acted like trolls are either illiterate or semi-illiterates or wannabe dearly beloved, and finally i don't compromise my legitimate right or expectations.

[walrusgumble]

Am sick and tired of your insult, what i meant is that, the registrar will check your identification and make equiries on how long you have resided in such jurisdiction, what are you talking about, you want to start another NUllity plan ?

You get insulted because you are proven wrong? What a senstive person you are. You are well able to throw up simley faces.

Well, don't throw up such generalised comments that are not based any any facts. In normal boards, discussions entail having reasoned comments and facts to back one up, not a forum to base arguments that are more clearly a piss and moan. If you want to piss and moan simply do it. But don't go on the basis that its some fact or attempt to counter argument a point. If its your opinion says its your opinion. At least then you won't get criticised for it. I only comment on comments that the poster believes is fact



I believe in eye for an eye, I will simply respond to a post in the exact same manner that posts directed at me or my comments are responded to.

As for the misunderstanding, I was not intending to be insulting. A number of my comments ended in question marks. I meant that as a way of asking you to clarify statements that I did not understand. If you did genuinely misunderstand what I said, that is my fault and not yours, on that basis i was not trying to insult you and i made that clear, by concluding at the end what was meant (the waynes word comment was only a light hearted joke which if you got might have been funny, but certainly not intended to insult you)

[walrusgumble]

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

Then why do your society keep on trying ?

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You said it all.

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .
ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

Then amend such cheap and stupid law and stop using section 2 subsection 2 of the non-fatal offence against a person act to cover up against immigrant under the criminal justice act, and a lot of people does not know what section 2 sub 2 contain under 1997 act.
Which mean a person fear of attack or been attack in future, then how do you ascertain that fact ?

Then why did ireland call it an ASSAULT ?

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

What case was that ? o'brien V parker or what ?
State ?

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

I DONT THINK YOU KNOW ME.

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You never answered the question rather than raving and ranting.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Defined crime and indecia of crime ?

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

You are more criminal than most of the immigrant, because when you
Manufacture cases and frame it up, your aims and objectives is ''Deportations'' isn't it Dude ?

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

I don want criminal aswell, but i want human right activist and freedom of speech in ireland.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.
ANGELCOUNTYR SAID

And what does that got to do with me ?
Check zhu and chen case 2004 and get the test of the case and sala case under article 8 of the Tfeu.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Am getting paid up till now for ballykissangel like you anyway.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Illitrate irish like you that, work as a sale assistant or otherwise unskilled laborers like you knows how to insult people but lack how to respect people which am used to insult but resist that based on lack of ''respect'' .

Next ?

Bad typing is far better than getting facts and laws all arse ways or common sense. Sales assistants? ha ha ha , lets just say, secretaries are paid to do all the typing that is needed in the work place, you will have to excuse the dodgy spellings. I am sure you will agree, its not much fun using a small keypad when you have akward stumpy fingers. Your own grammer is not up to much either. and what do you do?



How, how about dealing the arguments that you have made and I have responded to. Or even, providing proofs to back up the nonsense about being a sales rep or unskilled labour.


Off crying yeah, you well able to comment on incompetence this incompetent that. Well able to slag Irish people off when it suits, but when they give you what you want, they are great (ie Shatter) Yet, when its put to you that you are wrong, you can't take the heat.

Your silence would have been better

I have resided in Ireland for over a decade, most of you that acted like trolls are either illiterate or semi-illiterates or wannabe dearly beloved, and finally i don't compromise my legitimate right or expectations.

Angel, do you know what a troll is?

I have responded to incorrect comments made by you. this is a discussion. point out the information that i provided are incorrect. I have never shifted the goal posts and simply responded to every comment made by you. I can safely say, what I have said is pretty accurate. It is not even my own opinion, it is facts. If it was my opinion, then you would be correct on trolling. You are the one who has come out with statements that have gone nowhere. Are you sure that you are not the one trolling?

These are facts which you should have researched before making such brutal comments (the fact that you lived in ireland for so long makes it inexcusable to get your facts so wrong)

There is no such thing as a wannabe dearly beloved, you either are one or your not.

You better also check up what beloved means to. Any insults made to you would be equally applied to an Irish person who made such comments. Just as well that these sites are annoymonous and this site not been one reviewed by a larger groups of people because because defamation cases would be likely .

So that is how it is? if someone says anything or explain to you that you are wrong or explain to you why your wrong, and you don't like the responce, you thow up the race card? I surely hope you don't do that on a regular basis for your own sake.

actually, point out the dearly beloved remarks, with execption to the comments on stupidity etc (as they would be applied even if you were Irish)

illetrate, ok, but what is your excuse for making such brutal unfounded comments? Stupidity can also be found in well educated people, too even if they are the greatest typists and word magicans, have you ever meet people who went to private schools? I would imagine that knowledge is better than being able to type, won't you?

You said
finally i don't compromise my legitimate right or expectations.

good for you sir. Who is suggesting that you do compromise your legitimate right or expectations? What do you mean by that anyway? What legitimate rights or expectations do you have? (genuine question, as I do not know what you mean by that)

You may have a right to say what you like, but that right is hardly legitimate if you are making false comments. You do have a right to be treated with respect, but that will only be returned when you show some in your posts.

[angelcountry]

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Chalmers don't have to tell me what to do, is you have to use your head when asked a question relating to social welfare and deportation of European citizen for example within case precedence from writing book contest as stop trying to cover up.


Well, i will take you to an example of British immigration law, which says that, any non-Eu convicted and spent more than two years imprisonment will be subject to deportation, why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

I ahve seen a person in waterford that was convicted and sentenced to a term of three month imprisonment and upon his release he was granted further three years to remain in ireland, and 3 years is classified by INIS staff as minimum long term permit to reside, it depend on how they hate you, so which minister dont give status to convicted what ?

Furthermore, if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Now if the imprisonment is suspended would you still subject such immigrant to deportations order despite not spending such imposition of that term ?

Now an apology is still needed, if you want to deport a person that, you insulted and abuse and they don't get punished for insulting innocent immigrant and you're talking about shouting, it does seems to me that, Irish believed that, they're untouchable then.

Finally baultif precedence set a case study in terms of serious crimes which an immigrant you may hate can be deported anything short of that, is subject to judicial review and more waste of tax payers money i'll suggest. And Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

With regars to your example of British law, it is very very very very very very very hard to deport an EU citizen on the basis of past conduct and criminal offence. They must show a PRESENT AND GENUINE threat to society, and a reconsideration must be made AFTER prison. If people are smart, they will use their time in prison well as shown in case law of the ECJ. See Article 27 and 28 of the Directive, it merely puts 20 years of caselaw into legislation for the first time. Automatic deportation is not allowed as part of a criminal sentence, unless its really really really really really serious eg terrorism

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

Then why do your society keep on trying ?

With regard to NON EU people, these helpful provisions are not Applicable to them. ECHR and Boultif test applies. I can't think of a case were EU law has applied to criminal non eu people even if their families are EU people. In fact, cases like Boultif and many more have family members who are EU. That fact can help the person though, and I would imagine that considering that it does effectively cause indirect removal for the EU person, the ECJ in light of the Fundamental Rights Charter may be influenced. I would not bank on the mercy of ECHR and ECtHR caselaw , it is far harsher. I honestly have not got one iota of what will happen with regard to the Irish cases. All I am certain is that those who are refused under Zambrano will definitely rely on EU law and challenge it. There might be another ECJ case. Hence why I was and am critical of Shatter as for politican who, rarely shows that he has a brain, fell into the typical politican foot n mouth syndrome and gabbed off without even looking at the cases first. (As one newspaper hack correctly pointed out, most politicans, surprise surprise are intelligent but don't show it - Ireland don't like inteilectuals you see)

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You said it all.

why will Irish law not be open like the other world aswell ?

What do you mean by that? It is a well known fact that very similar approach is taken by the Irish. Go and read Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, before making such stupid claims. It clearly provides for same. I was wondering allowed what basis will the State consider, EU or ECHR basis?

The Waterford incident, maybe there were strong reasons as set out in Section 3 not to punish them by deportation. What was their legal status? Jes, you would be banging the doors down if the state decided to deport them. Until you know their full reasons please do not assume. Maybe they had Refugee Status? 3 months is hardly as serious as 2 years. What was the offence for? What country were they from, was it a safe country or did Ireland have to consider Soreing and Article 3 of the ECHR? It certaintly was a once off I can tell you.[/u] How many previous offences did they have. State sure do not like drug offences, assaults, fraud or continous offending. It helps if your from dangerous countries like Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan etc. You can't send these people home - its against the Convention. What was their family status and work status? How long where they in Ireland? It's not uncommon, but did the person give the same name for residence as he did when he went to jail?So until you get ALL of these facts, maybe you should refrain from assuming or wondering about how much they hate you .
ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

Then amend such cheap and stupid law and stop using section 2 subsection 2 of the non-fatal offence against a person act to cover up against immigrant under the criminal justice act, and a lot of people does not know what section 2 sub 2 contain under 1997 act.
Which mean a person fear of attack or been attack in future, then how do you ascertain that fact ?

Then why did ireland call it an ASSAULT ?

You said
if you take a look at deportation order 1999, it's often misinterpreted and lack of competence and abuse of power, but it does seems to me that, some idiotic immigrant could adsorb any letter you send them without any further meaning, section 3 sub 2 says that, any person that has spend a term of imprisonment or presently spending a term of imprisonment imposed by a court will be subject to deportation order.

Lack competence? Yeah go back and read the Section. It clearly gives the Minister for Justice and his agents the powers to decide on behalf of the executive. Section 3 has regularly being upheld in the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. This Act was brought before a Constitutional Challenge in 1999 by the President under Article 26 Procedures. The Act was found to be Constitutional. The Act provides clear guidelines for the Minister on how to consider cases, setting out around 12 or 13 issues to be considered; family circumstances etc. No one would dare to come out with toss like that , even the ECtHR would laugh you out of court.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAYS

What case was that ? o'brien V parker or what ?
State ?

So on that basis shut the talk to up because you are truely talking bollox. Maybe a quick read of any Constitutional book might help. Actually care to provide reliable sources that backs what you are saying? Go on it would not mind having a laugh. Or is this one of your personal opinions?

I DONT THINK YOU KNOW ME.

Normally your suppose to read subsections in light of what the rest of the section, or act says

What abuse of powers? So you have a problem with the decision to deport criminals, or give compasion in exceptional circumstances to criminals. Don't recall the ECHR suggesting that.

Suspended sentence, its still a criminal conviction, so the above considerations under Section 3 are applied. THe Offence was obviously not serious enough to merit custodial sentence. You have to give information regarding the crime because the world does not revolve around generalisation made by many here.

ANGELCOUNTRY REPLIED

You never answered the question rather than raving and ranting.

Boutfif sets the precedent for the test to be considered when wishing to deport someone. Guess what? It's identical to that contained in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999!!!!!!!!!! (of course the nature, and frequency of the offences are considered - go and look at Irish Caselaw) You can't apply the FACTS of Boultif with every case!! these cases are considered on a case by case basis. Go and see UNER V NETHERLANDS and other similar and other EU cases. Bare in mind, alot of those helpful ECHR cases were based are NON EU CITIZENS WHO THEMSELVES SPENT MOST OF THEIR LIVES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH WANTS TO DEPORT THEM. The same can not be said for alot of Irish cases, yet. Even Chambers (who is not putting himself out as an expert of ECHR) acknowledges this.

The apology issue? What in gods name are you talking about. Stop embarrassing your self. You are coming across as a self righteous twit. You could not be so more wrong about what you have said. Apologise to criminals? Really? (Not that they have to as the laws are being considered)

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Defined crime and indecia of crime ?

So either end this discussion now or provide the basis and sources for your opinion.

nd Minister shatter often mentioning such statement per serious crime, your right wing view may never see the order of the day.

What right wing views? Pointing out that Shatter should not prejudice those who are criminals and should given a fair shot in making the application and be given a fair consideration.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

You are more criminal than most of the immigrant, because when you
Manufacture cases and frame it up, your aims and objectives is ''Deportations'' isn't it Dude ?

Even the lefties don't want criminals in their country.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

I don want criminal aswell, but i want human right activist and freedom of speech in ireland.

You clearly don't know the difference between right and left wing political ideology. Even the lefties have sections who are not too keen on illegal and or criminal immigrants.

Even spectacularly stupid is this retarded and political retarded notion that Mr Alan Shatter, member of Fine Gael is of the left wing variety. NEWSFLASH, Alan Shatter is a centre right wing politican. Fine Gael are not a friend of the worker or social welfare receiptant. It has traditionally being a law and order party. It is historically a CONSERVATIVE party. Its natural friend is the British Conservatives. Anyone with an ounce of political awareness knows this. By the way, when I say right wing, I don't mean it as in facism or any of the mental stuff. ALL GOVERNMENTS BECOME RIGHT WING, even the current Labour party. It actually, surprise surprise is one difference between the other right wing party, Fianna Fail which traditionally has a vague and wide circule from some lefties and righties, business and farmers etc.
ANGELCOUNTYR SAID

And what does that got to do with me ?
Check zhu and chen case 2004 and get the test of the case and sala case under article 8 of the Tfeu.

And guess what, you will be sorely saddened to see that Shatter does not take any nonsense from criminals either. And he is not too fond of people who spend along time voluntarily (lets forget the economic situation for this part) on social welfare. Ah you will learn.

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Am getting paid up till now for ballykissangel like you anyway.

I really really really doubt many Irish people or non eu people who actually have complied with the laws via work permits etc would be in disagreement with a demand to fairly uphold not just the ability and workability of an immigration system but also the intergrity of same. Hardly Right wing politics, if it is so be it, its hardly offensive, never mind one to be taken to the heart.

My opinion? Eh, sorry but what I am saying is what the law is, and the de facto explanation of what the law means. So listen Walter Minty, you can either accept it or go back off into wonder land and dream up what you want it to be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is little on what I have said that flies in the face of what actually goes on.

Now please, for the sake of your credibilty amongst your peers, stop embarrassing yourself. It is not funny anymore

ANGELCOUNTRY SAID

Illitrate irish like you that, work as a sale assistant or otherwise unskilled laborers like you knows how to insult people but lack how to respect people which am used to insult but resist that based on lack of ''respect'' .

Next ?

Bad typing is far better than getting facts and laws all arse ways or common sense. Sales assistants? ha ha ha , lets just say, secretaries are paid to do all the typing that is needed in the work place, you will have to excuse the dodgy spellings. I am sure you will agree, its not much fun using a small keypad when you have akward stumpy fingers. Your own grammer is not up to much either. and what do you do?



How, how about dealing the arguments that you have made and I have responded to. Or even, providing proofs to back up the nonsense about being a sales rep or unskilled labour.


Off crying yeah, you well able to comment on incompetence this incompetent that. Well able to slag Irish people off when it suits, but when they give you what you want, they are great (ie Shatter) Yet, when its put to you that you are wrong, you can't take the heat.

Your silence would have been better

Nobody is there when you made the statement isn't it, then you can face the abitter of fact that, you did not raise a dearly beloved comment!

You're now on my ignore list.

[walrusgumble]

Nobody is there when you made the statement isn't it, then you can face the abitter of fact that, you did not raise a dearly beloved comment!

You're now on my ignore list.

I should have doen that with you in the first place.

Word of advice, you know sweet FA about either the Irish and EU legal system,so until you do, you should refrain from making the type of comments that you have made.

abbitter? What is that? You mean arbiter?

How does that connect with my post on which you made that comment? You feel so inadequate you still needed to respond? Why bother if you have nothing to say?

[angelcountry]

Nobody is there when you made the statement isn't it, then you can face the abitter of fact that, you did not raise a dearly beloved comment!

You're now on my ignore list.

I should have doen that with you in the first place.

Word of advice, you know sweet FA about either the Irish and EU legal system,so until you do, you should refrain from making the type of comments that you have made.

abbitter? What is that? You mean arbiter?

How does that connect with my post on which you made that comment? You feel so inadequate you still needed to respond? Why bother if you have nothing to say?

Your Garry Doyle order is now with me, and come and defend it, you are running away, the question is not about any previous rather than answer your claims with c.c.tv footage, at a police station for that matter fiss.

And mind you any statement we made here is classified here as been a probative statement is that correct ?

[acme4242]

abbitter? What is that? You mean arbiter?

until you can write better yourself, perhaps a little Dún do bhéal would
do no harm.

[walrusgumble]

abbitter? What is that? You mean arbiter?

until you can write better yourself, perhaps a little Dún do bhéal would
do no harm.

You should practice what you preach, your interpretation and understanding on more important/only essential issue(s) such as immigration rights and the laws and rules that govern them, like your friend, is not too great andcan be rather dubious.