feel really bad

[IQU]

i read the article in the newspaper this week regarding the sham marriages.i think gnib have to make the law to get permission from the doj to get marriage in ireland.this is the best they can stop the sham marriages?

[acme4242]

i read the article in the newspaper this week regarding the sham marriages.i think gnib have to make the law to get permission from the doj to get marriage in ireland.this is the best they can stop the sham marriages?

While I can understand you think its for the best, but such power over
peoples lives should remain with the people, you cannot trust the Irish
Institutions as they have shown that they serve themselves, not the
public.

I have no problem with a fraud being charged with fraud and getting
a fair hearing in front of his peers. But I do have a problem with dark
hearted anonymous officials having power over if people can get married.

If we make a little list of what the Dept has done so far

• 1) On the Basis to combat Sham marriages
  removed Post nuptial citizenship from all Irish Families, (except Government employees)
  with the promise that they would maintain other rights, such as
  automatic rights of entry and residence. This was a lie, and all
  rights have been removed.
  
  2) On the Basis to combat Sham marriages
  Removed the EU legal right of EU spouses to obtain 4EUfam cards
  because they had not lived in another EU state.
  This was unjust and thankfully was overturned by the ECJ
  
  3) On the Basis to combat Sham marriages
  Removed the legal right of EU spouses to obtain STAMP-4
  so they could get a job while 4EUfam cards are processed.
  This was unjust and thankfully was overturned by the Irish courts.

While at no time did the Dept actually decide to make marriage fraud
a punishable offense. They have shown more concern with removing
rights from all(except their own), than punishing sham marriages.

What you are reading in the papers in recent days, are people
being arrested for fake documents, not for sham marriage.
This dramatic display from the Dept is timed at an important stage
of the 2010 Bill, which if passed will remove the automatic
right of entry and residence from all spouses. Even EU citizens spouses.
While this is unjust, unlawful and over the top, it never stopped the Dept before.

7.—For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that a foreign national
seeking to enter into or be present or remain in the State is married,
or related by marriage, to a particular person does not, of itself,
create any entitlement for that foreign national to be granted a visa,
entry permission or residence permission, or have a residence per-
mission renewed under this Act.

Marriage itself not to create immigration advantage.

Its not you that should feel really bad, its the Dept and O'Donoghue, McDowell and D Ahern

[xxxtieee]

Whatever the case is, the department should seriously look at handling Sham marriages.

As usual it might be a worthwhile exercise to identify, what other countries do in this regard. Instead of blindly copying it, for a change, the dept should try to improvise.

[acme4242]

Whatever the case is, the department should seriously look at handling Sham marriages.

As usual it might be a worthwhile exercise to identify, what other countries do in this regard. Instead of blindly copying it, for a change, the dept should try to improvise.

I agrees, on the question of dealing with Fraud and Sham marriage,
well the answer is simple enough.

But on the question of rights, then its gets complicated.
There is a huge difference between the policy in Countries
that have had a long history of outgoing Emigration, such as Italy, Portugal,
and Empire state countries with a long 3rd world incoming immigration
history, such as UK, Germany, Denmark.

One tends to look after their own citizens and supports the
family and marriage, while the other shows contempt for its own.
So to follow the UK, as has been done, this would be to tear up the Irish
Constitution and show contempt for the rights of EU citizens family.

Remember the UK has no Constitution for its citizens, they are only subjects of the crown.

Since 1999 till now, the Irish policy has been to follow the UK and
remove rights, not to deal with fraud and sham marriage, but to use
it as an excuse all the same.

When you read the media reports, this fact is missing, instead you
get propaganda fed from the Dept, saying the real problem is the bloody
European Court of Justice giving EU citizens their family rights.
Stuff like "The European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland in the
Metock case is causing the rise in sham marriages"

[knapps]

what i dont understand when we know living in society who is the scam and who has married for his/her own benefits how come DOJ eyes are closed.
Come on this is not a rocket science.

Capture all those who have got married within 3 years and have not lived with their spouses except due to the medical issues or something catch them and take them to court for explanation...

Nothing against Nigerian/Pakistani/Indian/Lativan/Polish

it should be fare trial

[walrusgumble]

Whatever the case is, the department should seriously look at handling Sham marriages.

As usual it might be a worthwhile exercise to identify, what other countries do in this regard. Instead of blindly copying it, for a change, the dept should try to improvise.

I agrees, on the question of dealing with Fraud and Sham marriage,
well the answer is simple enough.

But on the question of rights, then its gets complicated.
There is a huge difference between the policy in Countries
that have had a long history of outgoing Emigration, such as Italy, Portugal,
and Empire state countries with a long 3rd world incoming immigration
history, such as UK, Germany, Denmark.

One tends to look after their own citizens and supports the
family and marriage, while the other shows contempt for its own.
So to follow the UK, as has been done, this would be to tear up the Irish
Constitution and show contempt for the rights of EU citizens family.

Remember the UK has no Constitution for its citizens, they are only subjects of the crown.

Since 1999 till now, the Irish policy has been to follow the UK and
remove rights, not to deal with fraud and sham marriage, but to use
it as an excuse all the same.

When you read the media reports, this fact is missing, instead you
get propaganda fed from the Dept, saying the real problem is the bloody
European Court of Justice giving EU citizens their family rights.
Stuff like "The European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland in the
Metock case is causing the rise in sham marriages"

Tear up the Constitution? I am sorry but you don't hear many citizens complaining, how do you think the result would be if it went to a poll? You must think that the UK is completely devoid of law, it may not have a paper constitution but for hundreds of years it has survived and many of the common law principles and rules applied by former Empire and COmmonwealth countries come from England. You should further well know that the Constitituion is only as good as the judge who interprerts it and each case is different. SO please don't go down a route you have little or no appreciation or understanding for! So what if they are subjects? Spain and Holland have monarchies, I think Sweden too? Whats your point on that one. The world and its mother knows that UK citizens don't take themselves being "subjects" too seriously

You also seem to leave out the fact, that were EU rights are NOT applicable, ECtHR have time and time again, ruled, particularily in situations where the spouse is illegal/ subject to a deportation order, that the State is not obliged to respect the couples choice of residence and where there are no insourmountable obtacles (many factors are considered) they can reside elsewhere. You also seem to leave out the fact that many of these cases were NOT about marriage of convenience but the right to prevent illegal immigrants or failed asylum seekers being allowed to reply upon the law in order to side wind normal immigration procedures. It made no difference if the marriage was real or not. THese cases made no argument to shams.

How many genuine cases have being refused status where a non immigrant marries an Irish National? Where the relationship is at least able to show a long term relationship, most married couples in this instance will have little difficulties and can rely upon the Irish Constitution, which was and is enacted for the Irish People and by the Irish People


Out of interest, how many couples would be willing to return to their own EU country (assuming work, standard of living, would be much better) in order to remain with their Non EU spouse? (assuming that they will be allowed to reside in same) Considering language barriers, how many non EU citizens will actually follow their EU family members back to their EU country in order to stay together (after all any EU country would do?) How many EU citizens would take the sacrfice and live with their spouses in the Non EU country? (assuming it was safe eg Nigeria and there WAS decent work opportunities)?

Do we have any stats or antidotal stories that this has happened?

Language barrier hardly an excuse now is it? THe risk of applications not working or the risk that the EU citizens would one day return home to their countries was / is surely foreseeable

I would be grateful to get some genuine discussion on the last issue

[gerard]

i read the article in the newspaper this week regarding the sham marriages.i think gnib have to make the law to get permission from the doj to get marriage in ireland.this is the best they can stop the sham marriages?

Won't help/make any difference, they can just get married up north...

[fatty patty]

Whatever the case is, the department should seriously look at handling Sham marriages.

As usual it might be a worthwhile exercise to identify, what other countries do in this regard. Instead of blindly copying it, for a change, the dept should try to improvise.

I agrees, on the question of dealing with Fraud and Sham marriage,
well the answer is simple enough.

But on the question of rights, then its gets complicated.
There is a huge difference between the policy in Countries
that have had a long history of outgoing Emigration, such as Italy, Portugal,
and Empire state countries with a long 3rd world incoming immigration
history, such as UK, Germany, Denmark.

One tends to look after their own citizens and supports the
family and marriage, while the other shows contempt for its own.
So to follow the UK, as has been done, this would be to tear up the Irish
Constitution and show contempt for the rights of EU citizens family.

Remember the UK has no Constitution for its citizens, they are only subjects of the crown.

Since 1999 till now, the Irish policy has been to follow the UK and
remove rights, not to deal with fraud and sham marriage, but to use
it as an excuse all the same.

When you read the media reports, this fact is missing, instead you
get propaganda fed from the Dept, saying the real problem is the bloody
European Court of Justice giving EU citizens their family rights.
Stuff like "The European Court of Justice judgment against Ireland in the
Metock case is causing the rise in sham marriages"

Tear up the Constitution? I am sorry but you don't hear many citizens complaining, how do you think the result would be if it went to a poll? You must think that the UK is completely devoid of law, it may not have a paper constitution but for hundreds of years it has survived and many of the common law principles and rules applied by former Empire and COmmonwealth countries come from England. You should further well know that the Constitituion is only as good as the judge who interprerts it and each case is different. SO please don't go down a route you have little or no appreciation or understanding for! So what if they are subjects? Spain and Holland have monarchies, I think Sweden too? Whats your point on that one. The world and its mother knows that UK citizens don't take themselves being "subjects" too seriously

You also seem to leave out the fact, that were EU rights are NOT applicable, ECtHR have time and time again, ruled, particularily in situations where the spouse is illegal/ subject to a deportation order, that the State is not obliged to respect the couples choice of residence and where there are no insourmountable obtacles (many factors are considered) they can reside elsewhere. You also seem to leave out the fact that many of these cases were NOT about marriage of convenience but the right to prevent illegal immigrants or failed asylum seekers being allowed to reply upon the law in order to side wind normal immigration procedures. It made no difference if the marriage was real or not. THese cases made no argument to shams.

How many genuine cases have being refused status where a non immigrant marries an Irish National? Where the relationship is at least able to show a long term relationship, most married couples in this instance will have little difficulties and can rely upon the Irish Constitution, which was and is enacted for the Irish People and by the Irish People


Out of interest, how many couples would be willing to return to their own EU country (assuming work, standard of living, would be much better) in order to remain with their Non EU spouse? (assuming that they will be allowed to reside in same) Considering language barriers, how many non EU citizens will actually follow their EU family members back to their EU country in order to stay together (after all any EU country would do?) How many EU citizens would take the sacrfice and live with their spouses in the Non EU country? (assuming it was safe eg Nigeria and there WAS decent work opportunities)?

Do we have any stats or antidotal stories that this has happened?

Language barrier hardly an excuse now is it? THe risk of applications not working or the risk that the EU citizens would one day return home to their countries was / is surely foreseeable

I would be grateful to get some genuine discussion on the last issue

You have valid point regarding how many will go back...you ask me not many i say. But the problem is to claim naturalization you need to show that you are living and working in Ireland so there is ans to your argument there.

Citizens won't complain about the constitution because it is not affecting them at a greater level, who gives a monkey if a non national waiting to get his naturalization/immigration status sorted out wether he being legal or illegal. Local citizen will sweep everyone under one brush whichever country your are in...thats why we have proper laws and constitution which don't think like an ordinary citizen and its above it.

i was listening to radio show last week and the presenter invited immigration solicitor to comment regarding this recent phenomenon about sham marriages. Presenter quoted few hundered nationalities (around 500 last year statistics) who are waiting in line to get their visas sorted. Solicitor said come on now....out of 10000 applying for visas and you think its a huge issue? its a very small proportion.

its departments spin doctory in motion as rightly mentioned above that immigration bill is coming soon so they need a scapegoat.

you wanna stop sham marriage....her how you stop it...

a non-national husband/wife should be interiewed and assessed in immigration office just like in US.

if couple already married & it was outside country's jurisdiction then interview be held in the embassy/consulate.

current 3 months notice should be extended to 5 months for non-nationals so proper checks can be done by GNIB and marriage registrar should be able to see couple's status. if they cannot produce certain documents...they are not allowed to marry here. if no marriage then no immigration status.

as far as cohabiting spouses are concerned a relationship period of 1 year (bills/statements/mortgage/rent etc) be considered to be allowed an immigration status.

[fatty patty]

i read the article in the newspaper this week regarding the sham marriages.i think gnib have to make the law to get permission from the doj to get marriage in ireland.this is the best they can stop the sham marriages?

Won't help/make any difference, they can just get married up north...

marriages in NI are stopped. you are required to follow pretty much same protocols as you do in South. And UK go one step further now to stop this...you need marriage visa to get married in UK if you are non-national. also to get married in UK u need to prove habitual residence.

[acme4242]

marriages in NI are stopped. you are required to follow pretty much same protocols as you do in South. And UK go one step further now to stop this...you need marriage visa to get married in UK if you are non-national. also to get married in UK u need to prove habitual residence.

my god, this is the first I've heard of these draconian measures,
Its seems next you'll have to get married at the Mass Rock

[acme4242]

Just reading the latest ICI Bulletin, some fair points

the Freedom of Movement Directive extended residency and labour market access rights to the non-EU citizen family members of EU citizens living or working here, it also gave the Government the ability to withdraw a residence permit, or refuse to issue one, when there was a reasonable belief that a couple had undergone a marriage of convenience. The ICI is unaware of any instance where the Government has withdrawn a person’s residence permit on the grounds that they underwent a marriage of convenience.

Previous policies the Government has introduced reportedly to combat marriages of convenience have affected all non-EU citizens applying for residence on the basis of their relationship with an EU citizen and have found to be unlawful. The ICI believes the Government has the authority to deal with the issue but must do so in a way that is fair and proportionate and subject to procedural safeguards. The EU has issued guidelines on dealing with marriages of convenience which could help achieve this.

So the Dept are already within their rights to remove or deny a
residency permit in the case of sham, and the Dept have removed a
grand total of zero.

There is something dodgy in the way the Dept are making so much
drama and publicity about sham marriages, to pass an over the top
draconian Bill that is not needed.
While not using already existing powers or even making fraud marriages
a simple criminal offense.
Dealing with the offenders instead of attacking everyone else rights.

And here are the instructions from the EU Commission >download<

4. ABUSE AND FRAUD
Community law cannot be relied in case of abuse
55
. Article 35 allows Member States to
take effective and necessary measures to fight against abuse and fraud in areas falling within
the material scope of Community law on free movement of persons by refusing, terminating
or withdrawing any right conferred by the Directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud,
such as marriages of convenience. Any such measure must be proportionate and subject to the
procedural safeguards provided for in the Directive

Community law promotes the mobility of EU citizens and protects those who have made
use of it
57
. There is no abuse where EU citizens and their family members obtain a right of
residence under Community law in a Member State other than that of the EU citizen’s
nationality as they are benefiting from an advantage inherent in the exercise of the right of
free movement protected by the Treaty58
, regardless of the purpose of their move to that
State
59
. By the same token, Community law protects EU citizens who return home after
having exercised their free movement rights.
4.1. Concepts of abuse and fraud
4.1.1. Fraud
For the purposes of the Directive, fraud may be defined as deliberate deception or
contrivance made to obtain the right of free movement and residence under the Directive. In
the context of the Directive, fraud is likely to be limited to forgery of documents or false
representation of a material fact concerning the conditions attached to the right of residence.
Persons who have been issued with a residence document only as a result of fraudulent
conduct in respect of which they have been convicted, may have their rights under the
Directive refused, terminated or withdrawn60
.
4.1.2. Abuse
For the purposes of the Directive, abuse may be defined as an artificial conduct entered into
solely with the purpose of obtaining the right of free movement and residence under
Community law which, albeit formally observing of the conditions laid down by Community
rules, does not comply with the purpose of those rules
61
.
4.2. Marriages of convenience
Recital 28 defines marriages of convenience for the purposes of the Directive as marriages
contracted for the sole purpose of enjoying the right of free movement and residence under
the Directive that someone would not have otherwise. A marriage cannot be considered as a
marriage of convenience simply because it brings an immigration advantage, or indeed any
other advantage. The quality of the relationship is immaterial to the application of Article 35.
The definition of marriages of convenience can be extended by analogy to other forms of
relationships contracted for the sole purpose of enjoying the right of free movement and
residence, such as (registered) partnership of convenience, fake adoption or where an EU
citizen declares to be a father of a third country child to convey nationality and a right of
residence on the child and its mother, knowing that he is not its father and not willing to
assume parental responsibilities.
Measures taken by Member States to fight against marriages of convenience may not be such
as to deter EU citizens and their family members from making use of their right to free
movement or unduly encroach on their legitimate rights. They must not undermine the
effectiveness of Community law or discriminate on grounds of nationality.

When interpreting the notion of abuse in the context of the Directive, due attention must be
given to the status of the EU citizen. In accordance with the principle of supremacy of
Community law, the assessment of whether Community law was abused must be carried out
in the framework of Community law, and not with regard to national migration laws. The
Directive does not prevent Member States from investigating individual cases where there is
a well-founded suspicion of abuse. However, Community law prohibits systematic checks
62
.
Member States may rely on previous analyses and experience showing a clear correlation
between proven cases of abuse and certain characteristics of such cases.
In order to avoid creating unnecessary burdens and obstacles, it is possible to identify a set of
indicative criteria suggesting that there is unlikely to be an abuse of Community rights:

Member States may define a set of indicative criteria suggesting the possible intention to
abuse the rights conferred by the Directive for the sole purpose of contravening national
immigration laws. National authorities may in particular take into account the following
factors:

• the couple have never met before their marriage;
• the couple are inconsistent about their respective personal details, about the circumstances
of their first meeting, or about other important personal information concerning them;
• the couple do not speak a language understood by both;
• evidence of a sum of money or gifts handed over in order for the marriage to be contracted
(with the exception of money or gifts given in the form of a dowry in cultures where this is
common practice);
• the past history of one or both of the spouses contains evidence of previous marriages of
convenience or other forms of abuse and fraud to acquire a right of residence;
• development of family life only after the expulsion order was adopted;

56
.

53
AG Stix-Hackl in case C-441/02 Commission v Germany
54
Case 36/75 Rutili (paras 37-39)
55
Cases 33/74 van Binsbergen (para 13), C-370/90 Singh (para 24) and C-212/97 Centros (paras 24-25)
56
Case C-127/08 Metock (paras 74-75)
57
Cases C-370/90 Singh, C-291/05 Eind and C-60/00 Carpenter
58
Cases C-212/97 Centros (para 27) and C-147/03 Commission v Austria (paras 67-68 )
59
Cases C-109/01 Akrich (para 55) and C-1/05 Jia (para 31)
60
Cases C-285/95 Kol (para 29) and C-63/99 Gloszczuk (para 75)
61
Cases C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke (para 52 et seq.) and C-212/97 Centros (para 25)