Connor Lenihan & Immigration

johnnyskeleton

I thought that McDowell was bad in his bumbling manner of right wing tyranny, but I have to take my hat off to Lenihan:

Irish Times, Friday 4th Jan, 2008 wrote:

"The major delays in settling and dealing with asylum applications at the moment is principally focused on the legal challenges that are being taken by a very active and voracious group of barristers down in the Bar library who are representing clients virtually on a 'no foal, no fee' basis," he said.

Vulnerable asylum seekers were being given unrealistic hopes by some lawyers when in most cases their chances of a successful appeal were limited, he continued.

"We'll have to persuade the Bar library and the legal profession to perhaps ease off and stop throwing cases into the High Court automatically. We had similar experiences with the legal profession with regard to Army deafness, and people had to talk to them and say: 'Look, this isn't on."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0104/1199313419896.html

He is criticising lawyers for taking cases on a no win no fee basis. A lawyer who takes on such a case does so either:
a) because what the Minister did was so obviously wrong that there is a great chance of success, or
b) because they believe in Immigration rights so much that being paid for their work is secondary.

Whatever criticisms of lawyers making lots of money from tribunals, personal injury claims, whatever, how can you criticse lawyers for taking a case that is in the public good, and that their chances of success are often few? He even says that there is little chance of success in the courts.

Instead of asking lawyers not to fight for rights, should he not just give peopel their rights instead?

Morlar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

how can you criticse lawyers for taking a case that is in the public good, and that their chances of success are often few?

Not everyone will agree with your definition of what is in the public good.

I dont think multiple levels of appeal after appeal after appeal are in the public good. It costs a fortune in time and effort of everyone involved and ties up the system. Surely you agree that at some point there has to be a cutoff otherwise the system becomes unworkable and makes itself open to abuse.

Out of curiosity - how many appeals would you say is a fair number ?

My vote would be one appeal - and in extremely exceptional circumstances - 2 appeals against a decision.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Instead of asking lawyers not to fight for rights, should he not just give peopel their rights instead?

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this ? It is not specific so its hard to know whether to agree or disagree with you on this.

johnnyskeleton

Morlar wrote: »

Out of curiosity - how many appeals would you say is a fair number ?

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this ? It is not specific so its hard to know whether to agree or disagree with you on this.

I'd say this, in an ideal world they'd get it right first time.

Let's take 3 scenarios:

1) A person who is legally entitled to live/work/reside in Ireland (say because they are genuinely married to an Irish citizen) is refused those rights. They get a lawyer to appeal the decision and win (because they should have been given those rights in the first place). The lawyer gets his cut and justice is served. But it would have been so much easier if the MJELR granted the right in the first place.

2) A person who is not legally entitled to live/work/reside in Ireland(say because they came over here without a visa and have no other reason to be here) is refused those rights. They get a lawyer who advises them there is no point of appeal. They don't appeal.

3) A person who is possibly entitled to refugee status in Ireland (because they are fleeing from a discriminating country) is refused asylum status because the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is well know for rejecting appeals out of hand. They get a lawyer to appeal the decision which he/she loses (because the court, after looking at the case properly, decides not to grant asylum status). The lawyer doesn't get paid and justice is served because at least now the issue has been properly heard. The RAT should have heard been fair in the first place.

In the first case, the appeals are necessary because the state was wrong. How can you say that these appeals should not be taken?

In the second case, the lawyers realise that there is no chance of success and so don't get involved (knowing there is no money or moral benefit to them).

In the third case, the appeal is arguably necessary, but it is not known until the case is heard properly. This probably accounts for the majority of these appeals, but the thing is that the lawyers take these cases on on a no foal no fee basis, so if they loose they get nothing. That's hardly selfish on their part, and if the case was decided properly in the first instance these cases would fall into either 1) or 2) above.

Morlar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How can you say that these appeals should not be taken?

I did not disagree with the concept of appeals. I never said 'it is wrong to appeal'.

I do take issue with repeated, hopeless - countless appeals. I believe there should be a limit enforced to protect the integrity of the system - that is all.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

and if the case was decided properly in the first instance these cases would fall into either 1) or 2) above.

Do you mean if citizenship were granted then there would be no need for appeals ?

I could be misreading you this time - (if thats the case its not intentional).
I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.

lostexpectation

he seemed to be gloating yesterday, I didn't see him say one thing about the international situation of asylum seekers, just feck the iranians and iraqis, back to their idles they go.

saw headlines yesterday one beside the other
asylum figure down lowest in ten years!
economy worst in ten years!

so is that good news or bad news for the FF types huh?

he's complaning about lawyers, they finally won a battle with the refugee tribunals to be able to avoid going to an official who turned down almost 100% of the applications and who also boasted about it.

johnnyskeleton

Morlar wrote: »

I did not disagree with the concept of appeals. I never said 'it is wrong to appeal'.

I meant how could one - as in how can the Minister suggest that these appeals should not be taken?

Morlar wrote: »

I do take issue with repeated, hopeless - countless appeals. I believe there should be a limit enforced to protect the integrity of the system - that is all.

Generally it goes like this: application either by paper or interview (the applicant usually doesn't have legal representation at this stage). In some cases e.g. asylum, there is an appeals board (the Refugee Appeals Tribunal). The applicants are usually represented at this stage but it's a fairly rapid process, not an excessive drain on the economy and it's the first proper hearing.

After this (when the application is refused), they go to the High Court. This is the first real appeal (technically it's not an appeal, it's a court action seeking an order that the application be dealt with properly). After this, in very exceptional circumstances, there is an appeal to the supreme court.

So I don't think the issue is with one applicant making 5 or 6 appeals (there are very few circumstances where this is even an option). Instead, the complaint is that there are too many refused applicants seeking relief in the High Court.

Morlar wrote: »

Do you mean if citizenship were granted then there would be no need for appeals ?

Not in absolute terms no. But where the person should be granted citizenship/refugee status/other right they should be given it at first instance, and not have to go all the way to the High Court or Supreme Court just to enforce their rights.

The Minister is complaining about the amount of appeals, but is ignoring the manner in which applications are refused in an arbitrary, irrational or downright incompetent way at first instance. Imagine, for example, it was the unwritten policy of your local planning office to refuse planning applications out of hand (obviously they might grant one or two minor planning applications so as not to arouse suspicion). Everyone in that area who wanted to get planning permission would have to go through a bogus system and then apply to An Bord Pleanala or eventually the High Court to get the real application dealt with. Imagine then that your local counsellor had the audacity to ask people to stop appealing to An Bord Pleanala or the High Court because it was costing too much to the state.

Here, we are talking about not just civil rights and human rights, but Ireland's international obligations to allow EU citizens the same rights as Irish citizens and to grant asylum to people fleeing oppression and tyranny. If they could get it right first time and say "you are a genuine applicant, application granted" or "you are not a genuine applicant, application refused" then there would be very few appeals.

Whatever about critising lawyers who make a lot of money, e.g. tribunal lawyers and the group he mentions in the statement (the army deafness claims), the lawyers for these cases are taking on cases on a no win no fee basis in circumstances where there is a very small liklihood of success. So if a lawyer takes on 20 cases and only 4 or 5 win, he will only get paid for 1/5 or 1/4 of the work he does. I don't think you could possibly say that they are in it for the money as much as because they believe that what they are doing is right.

Morlar wrote: »

I could be misreading you this time - (if thats the case its not intentional).
I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.

Yes we do get to decide who can live here and on what basis, but this is subject to our laws, constitution and the international agreements we have signed up to. Obviously there there will be unsuccessful applicants, and obviously many, even most, of those unsuccessful applicants don't deserve and are not entitled to live here. But by lumping in with these refusals a substantial number of genuine applicants, the government is creating an injustice. However, instead of trying to redress this injustice, they are saying that they that have been wronged should shut up and ship out, and not waste money on the appeal that would grant them their rights.

_JOE_

I feel that it has become evident that the Minister & Co are increasingly pushing towards a closed door policy, reason due to the EU, free movement and new accession states...
The minister is also aware of the erosion of the courts policy on curial deference and its recent willingness to review decisions of the RAT due to misevaluation etc...that in my is the reason why he is having a go at lawyers taking cases...

cabinteelytom

'no foal, no fee'
Can anyone clarify; if there is a foal, is a fee paid to the lawyer?

lostexpectation

curial deference?

johnnyskeleton

"no foal no fee" - you don't produce the goods you don't get paid. It's a system that doesn't exist anymore in Ireland, but solicitors used to take on cases on the basis that if they don't win you don't have to pay them any legal costs, and if you win they get a percentage of the winning. What it means here is that, although the lawyers are charging a fee, unless they win the appeal (and are awarded costs against the state) the lawyers aren't going to see a penny in fees. I suppose it comes from the time that legal disputes often centered around livestock.

curial deference - curia is the latin for court, curial deference means that when the court is asked to review a decision of a public body, it should respect that body's expert opinion to such an extent that it won't interfere with it's finding of fact unless that finding is very obviously wrong. It also means that the courts won't second-guess the wording of legislation and must interpret it as it is written unless it is so illogical as to be rendered meaningless.

Basically the courts usually have a lot of respect for the decisions of local authorities etc, but because the decisions of the RAT can be so illogical, they are more prepared to look at the decisions more closely.

I suppose what I really what to know is, will the minister get a lot of support from the "damn fat cat lawyers" types, or is this something that might get civil liberties supporters to focus more on what is actually going on in immigration in the country?

cabinteelytom

So,'no foal no fee' is not charity work. It is underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time.
But whether they win or lose, I (the taxpayer); I lose. The 'state', which I fund, has to provide a lawyer to make the opposing argument, and pay a very expensive judge to preside, also clerks,admin,maintenence. Meanwhilw my own search for justice is delayed.
Let's end the financial incentive for appeals which are the legal equivalent of announcing, 'that coin didn't fall the way I intended, I'll give myself a second throw' when playing pitch and toss.
Second and subsequent appeals should require a financial bond, lodged beforehand by the lawyer, which is equivalent to the state's likely costs and supplemented if drawn-out proceedings add to those costs; which is given to the Revenue Commissioners if the appeal fails.

_JOE_

Firstly a judge is paid per annum and not case by case...secondly why should the lawyer enter the bond?
It is very true that these cases have a huge drain on the coffers but I think that the point that the previous poster was making was that If these rights were given in the first place, we would not have the present situation...
Also, is access to the courts and legal assistance (where subsequent appeals are not widely available) not a fundamental right given by the European charter of human rights?

bartholomewbinn

Clarify something for me please; if someone is in this country illegally and the authorities are rightly deporting them, how have they got recourse to the law? Why are they just not shipped out. Am I naive or am I missing something?

johnnyskeleton

cabinteelytom wrote: »

So,'no foal no fee' is not charity work. It is underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time.

Well I never said that it is charity work, but I wouldn't characterise it as underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time. The minister isn't saying that these cases are taken on by bored junior and unsuccessful lawyers, he is saying that they are taken by a few outspoken lawyers. These lawyers could easily make several times more money by taking other types of cases but they focus on these cases because, in all liklihood, they actually believe that it's right.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

But whether they win or lose, I (the taxpayer); I lose. The 'state', which I fund, has to provide a lawyer to make the opposing argument, and pay a very expensive judge to preside, also clerks,admin,maintenence.

As I've already said, where it is clear cut that the person doesn't have the case, I doubt the lawyers would bother, and where it is clear cut that the applicant should win, then it is the state who are wasting the money, not the applicants. In all the cases in between, if the immigration system was dealt with properly at the bottom (arguably also costing more money) there would be less appeals and thus this wouldn't be a problem. But instead of taking this politically dangerous course of action, the Minister picks on what have traditionally been an easy target - the lawyers. But whatever way you want to look at it, these lawyers that he is referring to are basically taking someone's case, that they believe to be correct, without any guarantee of being paid. Could you imagine if you were, for example a doctor working with dying people, and you only got paid if you kept them alive. While a doctor can try to keep them alive, ultimately it is out of his hands, and in reality most will die. Does that stop it from being a vocational calling to try to stop them from dying? Does it necessarily follow that the only doctors that would take such a job are underemployed and making a gamble with their time?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Meanwhilw my own search for justice is delayed.
Let's end the financial incentive for appeals which are the legal equivalent of announcing, 'that coin didn't fall the way I intended, I'll give myself a second throw' when playing pitch and toss.

I take it from this that you have some matter in the courts which is taking a long time to get through? How would you feel if the Minister said "listen, you're taking up too much valuable court time, and the other side is being paid by the taxpayers/insurance payers. So just drop your case now because you probably won't win, and leave the courts for other business?"

In any event, I would hardly call being paid for maybe 1 in 4 cases a "financial incentive" (bear in mind that the state is allowed to examine a lawyer's fees, and they can only charge for the particular case and not for the unsuccessful ones) and these appeals aren't "new rehearing" type appeals, they are appeals on specific points of law, proceedure and the constitution. You can't simply have a second throw, you have to have a specific point of appeal.

bartholowmewbinn wrote:

Second and subsequent appeals should require a financial bond, lodged beforehand by the lawyer, which is equivalent to the state's likely costs and supplemented if drawn-out proceedings add to those costs; which is given to the Revenue Commissioners if the appeal fails.

Great. Why not say that every applicant for asylum in this country must lodge €5,000 immediately as they enter the country, otherwise they can be sent straight back. This would, effectively, prevent perhaps 99% of asylum seekers even making an application for asylum, which would be great for protecting your precious tax euros and would make sure that if anyone has been tortured, oppressed and chased out of their country we won't even pretend to care.

But that aside, as I've said already, the Minister is not really concerned about the same applicant making 2 or 3 appeals, he's concerned about the number of applicants who make 1 appeal to the High Court. For asylum, the costs of the initial application and the appeal to the RAT are very low (there are no lawyers in the initial application and a small fee for one lawyer in the RAT. For most other types of immigration cases (i.e. the vast majority), there is simply an application which is accepted or rejected. I don't think the minister is concerned about this stage of the system, he is attacking the lawyers who argue that the applicants were treated unfairly or denied their rights during this application proceedure. There might occasionally be a second appeal to the supreme court, but this is only in exceptional circumstances.

So it's not like there are a few people having 3 or 4 bites of the cherry for no reason other than the lawyer's hope of getting paid and the applicant trying to stay here for a bit longer (which is how the minister would suggest it), but it is that the system is very unfair, there are lawyers challenging this unfairness and it seems that the minister is trying to both stigmatise them as greedy wasters and also to blame them for the "grief and difficulty" in the immigration system (as though it wasn't the incompetence and unfairness of his ministry that was at fault).

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Clarify something for me please; if someone is in this country illegally and the authorities are rightly deporting them, how have they got recourse to the law? Why are they just not shipped out. Am I naive or am I missing something?

You're missing something. They are either legally in the country but have been illegally refused their rights, or it has not yet been determined in a just and reasonable manner whether they are entiteld to be legally in the country or not. In any event, not all immigration cases are about deportation, a lot of them are about the right to work, study, reside, etc.

In relation to your question how have they got recourse to the law, everybody has recorse to the law, if they didn't, we wouldn't live in a democracy. Why, for example, aren't all people accused of crimes simply executed? It would be a lot simpler, and probably very popular, but it would be the end of our system of government and justice.

bartholomewbinn

I am not talking about people who have committed crimes, or people who are legally here and are being illegally refused their rights. What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately.

It must first be determined whether or not they are here illegally. It should also be noted that very few asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, have "proper documentation".

bartholomewbinn

djpbarry wrote: »

It must first be determined whether or not they are here illegally. It should also be noted that very few asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, have "proper documentation".

Virtually every asylum applicant that arrives here has come from another EU country and that is where they should have made their asylum application. Direct flights into Ireland from non European countries (apart from the USA) are few. We should simply send them back to where they just came from as soon as possible; we should not be creating problems for ourselves by letting them in here. This of course can be a problem with our open border with the United Kingdom, but a bit more vigilance would stop a lot of it.

johnnyskeleton

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?

They usually are deported after a brief visit to mountjoy. Some of them apply for asylum, others require time to speak to their embassy if, for example, they have lost their passport, but the ones that don't are simply deported. Lawyers often aren't invloved, but if the person wants to speak to a lawyer they are entitled to do so. If they, as you say, have no right or reason to be here then there won't be a legal challenge. This is not the problem. The problem is all the other people who are being denied their rights and who are entitled to come into and remain in the country but are denied those rights. Here's a post about someone who, under law, is entitled to work in Ireland. And arguably all they want to do is live and work and be productive here. But they are just refused for no apparent reason.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Virtually every asylum applicant that arrives here has come from another EU country and that is where they should have made their asylum application. Direct flights into Ireland from non European countries (apart from the USA) are few. We should simply send them back to where they just came from as soon as possible; we should not be creating problems for ourselves by letting them in here. This of course can be a problem with our open border with the United Kingdom, but a bit more vigilance would stop a lot of it.

Dublin is an international airport and has flights coming in from all over the world - but in any case have you never heard of transfer flights? What we can't do is simply send asylum seekers back to where they just came from, because we are obliged to consider their application under international law. You could argue that international law is creating problems for us, but that's a different story.

lostexpectation

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not talking about people who have committed crimes, or people who are legally here and are being illegally refused their rights. What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?

you seem to have a problem with understanding the basic concept of asylum, or your are deliberately pretending not to get it for particular reason.

ljy9fn7qwhgasx

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have to take my hat off to Lenihan

This is Conor Lenihan being interviewed, not Brian. Very important distinction, for a number of reasons. Any way of changing this thread's title?

johnnyskeleton

Rogelio Proud Unit wrote: »

This is Conor Lenihan being interviewed, not Brian. Very important distinction, for a number of reasons. Any way of changing this thread's title?

Sorry, you're right. My mind skipped over that significant detail and went straight to the audacious comments. I'll see if a mod will change it.

Edit:Much obliged, psi.

Hotblack Desiato

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Edit:Much obliged, psi.

It's still wrong, though :eek:

johnnyskeleton

ninja900 wrote: »

It's still wrong, though :eek:

How so?

Hotblack Desiato

There is one N in Conor

sovtek

Morlar wrote: »

I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.

Do you also think that Ireland has the right to ignore EU law and it's own law in regards to deciding who can live here and who can't?
Some examples:
Currently non-EU spouses of EU nationals are being denied residency because they did not reside in another Member State first
THIS IS AGAINST EU LAW!
The INIS is rejecting citizenship and LTR applications for pretty much any reason they want to as they have "ministerial discretion". While the last two are taking 3 years and 1 1/2 years respectively to process (in which you HAVE to maintain for work permit status) Some examples of this are if someone has collected the dole after being completely legal to do so ie they have paid over 2 years into PAYE.
Another is if they have broken periods in their 5 years of reckonable residence..ie they were on a work permit one year and on a spouse (eu rights) stamp another.
If they have any broken period of employment...ie you are on a work permit and unfairly dismissed but legally allowed to take up employment with another company.
Recently several Nigerians have been detained in Belfast by INIS, in some cases for months, even though they had visas for Ireland. One woman had just given birth when she was detained in Belfast.

Now that you have some fine examples of the MFJ Brian Lenehan's contempt for immigrants...do you think he is biased?

Morlar

sovtek wrote: »

Do you also think that Ireland has the right to ignore EU law and it's own law in regards to deciding who can live here and who can't?

If I say that then its a good guess I do - if I dont say that then your making a statement in the form of a question. Otherwise you can go by what I actually said.

sovtek

Morlar wrote: »

If I say that then its a good guess I do - if I dont say that then your making a statement in the form of a question. Otherwise you can go by what I actually said.

Then can you tell me if you think that there is a bias in the system against foreignors or not?

Morlar

sovtek wrote: »

Then can you tell me if you think that there is a bias in the system against foreignors or not?

I think the burden of proof on that would be yours & you havent proven institutional bias or anything close to it.

Your an american right ? I think there would be a great deal of anti-americanism in Ireland especially among the left - you would get no argument from me on that one but how that could translate into an immigration system being prejudiced against you is beyond me.

sovtek

Morlar wrote: »

I think the burden of proof on that would be yours & you havent proven institutional bias or anything close to it.

The system itself is set up to allow ANY bias that an individual immigration official might have. I've given you examples where that has happened on a wide scale. It seems pretty obvious to me...but then I'm living it so maybe it isn't so easy to ignore.
I told you about the illegal denying of residence to non-eu spouses of EU nationals because they haven't lived in another EU state. Thats proof right there.
That doesnt' take into account the apparent purposeful slowdown of LTR and citizenship applications by the INIS which is going on at the moment. It beggars belief that they are just overwhelmed. It would mean that each citizenship application is taking over a week to process. They are either lazy beyond comprehension or its an intentional slowdown to shake loose as many foreigners is possible. Say what you will about civil servants but I can't believe they are that lazy.

Your an american right ? I think there would be a great deal of anti-americanism in Ireland especially among the left - you would get no argument from me on that one but how that could translate into an immigration system being prejudiced against you is beyond me.

Thats rubbish and a shabby attempt to tar the "left". I'm also not saying that it's biased against me personally. I haven't even seen the worst of it as I'm english speaking, a professional and white.

Morlar

sovtek wrote: »

The system itself is set up to allow ANY bias that an individual immigration official might have. I've given you examples where that has happened on a wide scale. .

You have mentioned anecdotes that prove nothing.

On the subject of immigration there are lots of anecdotes doing the rounds, many would be less than favourable to immigrants - so if we are to ignore those as anecdotal why are yours somehow a valid indicator of how the system is functioning ?

If immigration officials have leeway to use their considerable experience to ferret out false stories for whatever reason I would be more inclined to take their word for it in all honesty as they are the ones who see and hear all the bogus stories on a daily basis.

sovtek wrote: »

It seems pretty obvious to me...but then I'm living it so maybe it isn't so easy to ignore.

Another way of saying that is that you are not looking at it with any degree of detachment.

This is the immigration system of Ireland - I am Irish and so its there to represent my interests same as the interests of all Irish people. If an american or any potential immigrant doesnt agree with the way its run then then they are free to go home. I dont see how just because you want to live here you feel you should be given a clean run at slagging off our institutions that cost us millions each year and that work in the interests of Irish people but also as a result of you wanting to live here.

I cant imagine an Irish person in your equivalent situation in the US waiting on their case to be reviewed with your attitude. IF anything that attitude in itself would be grounds for refusal dont you think ? Thats assuming they would be permitted to even stay while their case was decided in any event which is doubtful.

If you are one of the people going through the system (who hasnt yet heard a 'yes' answer) you are bound to have a less appreciative view of it.

I think there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest. Rather that than allow bogus people in who will only encourage more of the same.

Your looking at this from the perspective of a potential immigrant who wants a speedy 'yes'- I am looking at it from the perspective of an Irish person who is concerned that we are not deluged with the wrong sort of people who either are not skilled or are not interested in working here and contributing to our economy. On balance the interests of Irish people should come first here. If that means a delay to address our legitimate concerns then so be it. Its not intentional and you will just have to live with it.

sovtek wrote: »

I told you about the illegal denying of residence to non-eu spouses of EU nationals because they haven't lived in another EU state. Thats proof right there.

If there is a system wide mis-reading and mis-application of the law then I think that any one of this country's army of idiotic do gooders and ambulance/publicity chasing scumbag solicitors can take an action on.

sovtek wrote: »

That doesnt' take into account the apparent purposeful slowdown of LTR and citizenship applications by the INIS which is going on at the moment. It beggars belief that they are just overwhelmed. It would mean that each citizenship application is taking over a week to process. They are either lazy beyond comprehension or its an intentional slowdown to shake loose as many foreigners is possible. Say what you will about civil servants but I can't believe they are that lazy.

Its also possible that they are trying to deal with numbers of bogus people looking to bleed our benefits state dry. Them taking care over every application is a good thing in my view. Unless I am wrong if these people filled in their paperwork and got approved before deciding to force the issue by coming here then they would not be in this situation of having to (shock -horror) wait for their case to be dealt with.

Ireland has taken in a record amount of immigrants /refugees in the shortest time imaginable and put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it. In light of the circumstances and in light of a total absence of any evidence I am prepared to give our system the benefit of the doubt.

sovtek

You know I think it's rich when Irish people get all xenophobic considering your diasporic tendencies.

Morlar wrote: »

You have mentioned anecdotes that prove nothing.

On the subject of immigration there are lots of anecdotes doing the rounds, many would be less than favourable to immigrants - so if we are to ignore those as anecdotal why are yours somehow a valid indicator of how the system is functioning ?

Not anecdotes when they are FACTS!

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=21903

You sound like you could do with reading a few posts there and get a little education in immigration.

If immigration officials have leeway to use their considerable experience to ferret out false stories for whatever reason I would be more inclined to take their word for it in all honesty as they are the ones who see and hear all the bogus stories on a daily basis.

I thought your excuse was that Ireland doesn't have very much experience with immigration.
Most immigration officials I've encountered don't know where Nigeria is much less that it's a politically unstable country that persecutes people for speaking out against the government. Oh and that a fair few Irish went there to take land from the natives when the British owned it.

Another way of saying that is that you are not looking at it with any degree of detachment.

No I've lost patience with it as it's screwing tens of thousand of people who have followed the law and paid their taxes just to have an over priviledged, incompetant asshole try and send as many of us packing as possible and ignoring Irish law as well as EU law to do it.

This is the immigration system of Ireland - I am Irish and so its there to represent my interests same as the interests of all Irish people. If an american or any potential immigrant doesnt agree with the way its run then then they are free to go home.

It's in your interest to be in the EU and its your interest that your government treat everyone according to EU and Irish law.
Its in Irish people's interest that you be able to move about freely within the EU and your potential partners/spouses be granted same.
It's in your interest that immigrant workers that contribute heavily to your economy and pay more taxes than you do are treated fairly.

I dont see how just because you want to live here you feel you should be given a clean run at slagging off our institutions that cost us millions each year and that work in the interests of Irish people but also as a result of you wanting to live here.

I DO LIVE HERE!!!! I can slag them off because I help pay for them. Your mr lenihan IS costing you and I (in addition to the same taxes you pay I also have to pay a tax in the form of the EUR100 for the GNIB card every year) millions when he subverts Irish and EU law as the article above so states.

I cant imagine an Irish person in your equivalent situation in the US waiting on their case to be reviewed with your attitude. IF anything that attitude in itself would be grounds for refusal dont you think ? Thats assuming they would be permitted to even stay while their case was decided in any event which is doubtful.

My attitude is colored by your govenments treatment of me and thousands like me. Conor Lenihan wants us foreigners to integrate. Do you think we are likley to do that if he is trying to screw us?
Speaking of Irish immigrants in the US. Bertie is trying to have the illegals Irish treated all special unlike the same illegals here in Ireland.

If you are one of the people going through the system (who hasnt yet heard a 'yes' answer) you are bound to have a less appreciative view of it.

Most definitely if the person running the system is trying to break Irish and EU law to do it. That my friend is the very definition of systematic bias.

I think there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest. Rather that than allow bogus people in who will only encourage more of the same.

Where are all these welfare tourists? I can tell you that right now I am in need of social welfare as I was unfairly dismissed recently. However I cannot claim it as I will lose my citizenship claim. That's in spite of me paying into PAYE for 8 years and being legally entitled to it.

Your looking at this from the perspective of a potential immigrant who wants a speedy 'yes'- I am looking at it from the perspective of an Irish person who is concerned that we are not deluged with the wrong sort of people who either are not skilled or are not interested in working here and contributing to our economy. On balance the interests of Irish people should come first here. If that means a delay to address our legitimate concerns then so be it. Its not intentional and you will just have to live with it.

No I will not just have to live with it. And the evidence is that your government is breaking the law! I will get together with like minded people and do what it legally takes to make them answerable to the law and I will do my best to educate the ignorant.
I do not want a speedy anything. I have waited patiently, obeyed the law and contributed heavily to this economy both in graft and in taxes for EIGHT YEARS!.
Delaying residency and citizenship has nothing to do with job skills. In fact it will repel those who have skills and they will go somewhere else. It will also influence how the Irish are treated in their own country and elsewhere.

If there is a system wide mis-reading and mis-application of the law then I think that any one of this country's army of idiotic do gooders and ambulance/publicity chasing scumbag solicitors can take an action on.

I wonder how you logically call solicitors that get no fee for failed immigration cases ambulance chasers. Ambulance chasers would be spending their time on dodgy building contracts and the like if they really wanted to make money.
Praise the "do gooders" in their hard work for making life better for you in spite of your rhetoric against them.

Its also possible that they are trying to deal with numbers of bogus people looking to bleed our benefits state dry. Them taking care over every application is a good thing in my view. Unless I am wrong if these people filled in their paperwork and got approved before deciding to force the issue by coming here then they would not be in this situation of having to (shock -horror) wait for their case to be dealt with.

People waiting for LTR and citizenship are not bleeding anyone dry and again THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAX THAN YOU ARE. They cannot claim unemployment benefits.
It takes a few minutes to check a computer for everything. I worked for a company that processes J1 applications. The criteria are much more stringent and yet 1 person could process thousands of applications a month. Again civil servants may be lazy but you can't realistically say that's what is going on.

Ireland has taken in a record amount of immigrants /refugees in the shortest time imaginable and put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it. In light of the circumstances and in light of a total absence of any evidence I am prepared to give our system the benefit of the doubt.

I've given you plenty of evidence of systematic bias. You are perfectly free to ignore it but it does your argument no good.
Rapid change does not excuse the Irish government for breaking the law and it will end up costing us all in the long and short term.
I see no evidence that Ireland is taking in a record amount of refugees and the immigrants to your country contribute more than they take away.
And you may not like this...but we do have rights.

Morlar

sovtek wrote: »

You know I think it's rich when Irish people get all xenophobic considering your diasporic tendencies.

Its not xenophobia to disagree with your take on things.

sovtek wrote: »

Not anecdotes when they are FACTS!

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=21903

You sound like you could do with reading a few posts there and get a little education in immigration.

I would recommend the high court route if you have actual evidence of bias in our system.

sovtek wrote: »

Most immigration officials I've encountered don't know where Nigeria is

Thats not really believable (or particularly relevant even if it were).

sovtek wrote: »

much less that it's a politically unstable country that persecutes people for speaking out against the government. Oh and that a fair few Irish went there to take land from the natives when the British owned it.

Nigeria is not a country at war. You are trying to imply some kind of Irish responsibility for nigerias problems on the basis that you claim a 'few Irish' went there to take land from the natives when the British owned it'. Thats plain ridiculous imo. How about an Irish contractor in Iraq ? Would we bear a collective responsibility for that ?

sovtek wrote: »

No I've lost patience with it as it's screwing tens of thousand of people who have followed the law and paid their taxes just to have an over priviledged, incompetant asshole try and send as many of us packing as possible and ignoring Irish law as well as EU law to do it.

I hope that attitude isnt how you approach the immigration people ? Again I would point out you are being treated infinitely more fairly than an equivalent Irish person in the united states would be - if they arrived without their paper work in order.

sovtek wrote: »

It's in your interest to be in the EU and its your interest that your government treat everyone according to EU and Irish law.
Its in Irish people's interest that you be able to move about freely within the EU and your potential partners/spouses be granted same.

Irish citizens are in the EU - we can move freely in the EU. If we decide we want to live in for example america or australia thats a different story. We do the research apply and meet the requirements then when our paper work is in order off we go. We dont arrive there and then bitch and moan endlessly.

sovtek wrote: »

It's in your interest that immigrant workers that contribute heavily to your economy and pay more taxes than you do are treated fairly.

You say they are not but dont have any actual evidence beyond anecdotes and an internet board where immigrants share experiences.

sovtek wrote: »

I DO LIVE HERE!!!! I can slag them off because I help pay for them. Your mr lenihan IS costing you and I (in addition to the same taxes you pay I also have to pay a tax in the form of the EUR100 for the GNIB card every year) millions when he subverts Irish and EU law as the article above so states.

Really getting sick of immigrants bitching and moaning about having to pay €100 for their GNIB card. Get over it. Its not the end of the world. It is proper that you pay it rather than me in more taxes. We are already paying to house feed and clothe every bogus asylum seeker in this country so you having to pay for your gnib card out of your salary - I can live with that. If the Irish govt is breaking the law - as mentioned this country's army of idiotic do -gooders and scumsucking solicitors will look to make money and a name from that by taking it to court.

sovtek wrote: »

My attitude is colored by your govenments treatment of me and thousands like me. Conor Lenihan wants us foreigners to integrate. Do you think we are likley to do that if he is trying to screw us?

By making you wait while your application is assessed ?

Any Irish person who has to deal with the 'aparatus' of the state will know that it can be painful. There is ass-covering, incompetence and transferring around in general. There is a bit of a mis-step in logic though if you see all of the above and then assume that its because the system is prejudiced.

sovtek wrote: »

Speaking of Irish immigrants in the US. Bertie is trying to have the illegals Irish treated all special unlike the same illegals here in Ireland.

I believe he is - lets not forget those people have worked and did not draw a single penny from the american welfare system.

sovtek wrote: »

Most definitely if the person running the system is trying to break Irish and EU law to do it. That my friend is the very definition of systematic bias.

Court - take it to.

sovtek wrote: »

Where are all these welfare tourists? I can tell you that right now I am in need of social welfare as I was unfairly dismissed recently. However I cannot claim it as I will lose my citizenship claim. That's in spite of me paying into PAYE for 8 years and being legally entitled to it.

If you cannot do what you are legally entitled to do (and your version of what you are legally entitled to do ties with reality) and someone or some thing is preventing you then a crime is being committed - take it to the guards/court.

sovtek wrote: »

No I will not just have to live with it. And the evidence is that your government is breaking the law! I will get together with like minded people and do what it legally takes to make them answerable to the law and I will do my best to educate the ignorant.

Go for it.

sovtek wrote: »

People waiting for LTR and citizenship are not bleeding anyone dry and again THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAX THAN YOU ARE. They cannot claim unemployment benefits.
It takes a few minutes to check a computer for everything. I worked for a company that processes J1 applications. The criteria are much more stringent and yet 1 person could process thousands of applications a month. Again civil servants may be lazy but you can't realistically say that's what is going on.

If by paying more tax than you mean they pay for their own card - then thats just too bad.

sovtek wrote: »

I've given you plenty of evidence of systematic bias. You are perfectly free to ignore it but it does your argument no good.

We can disagree on the so called evidence here.

sovtek wrote: »

I see no evidence that Ireland is taking in a record amount of refugees and the immigrants to your country contribute more than they take away. And you may not like this...but we do have rights.

This is going to be hard to prove (no evidence that Ireland has taken in a record amount of refugees and the immigrants)

This all reminds me of an episode of kolchak where the newspaper editor says to the intrepid reporter 'Come back when you have some real evidence karl'. Not to be dismissive of your post but the same could equally apply here. You have provided anecdotes and a link to an board where immigrants share experiences and bitch and moan.

You have a theory or a belief that our system is prejudiced but you have no evidence other than delays, answers in the negative as opposed to the positive and the fact that your case among others hasnt been resolved yet. That is not evidence.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

I do take issue with repeated, hopeless - countless appeals.

This doesn't happen in reality, because no solicitor will take a "hopeless" case.

Morlar wrote: »

Do you mean if citizenship were granted then there would be no need for appeals ?

I think what he is saying is that it would appear that applications are not being properly assessed by the first instance committee, judging by the large number of applicants who are granted refugee status on appeal.

sovtek wrote: »

Currently non-EU spouses of EU nationals are being denied residency because they did not reside in another Member State first

If this is true, then it is against Irish law, never mind EU law. Your country of origin should not have any bearing on your application. Why would an EU citizen need to apply for Irish citizenship?

sovtek wrote: »

The INIS is rejecting citizenship and LTR applications for pretty much any reason they want to as they have "ministerial discretion".

Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot that can be done about that, as there is no longer an absolute entitlement to citizenship through marriage (possibly to combat "false" marriages).

sovtek wrote: »

While the last two are taking 3 years and 1 1/2 years respectively to process

If this is true then I would agree that this is a ridiculous length of time to process any application. How much is this excess costing the taxpayer I wonder?

sovtek wrote: »

The system itself is set up to allow ANY bias that an individual immigration official might have.

This would certainly seem to be the case - citizenship law seems to be a bit of a grey area, as evidenced by Citizens Information:
"In order to apply for naturalisation in Ireland, you must have been physically resident in Ireland for a certain length of time."

Morlar wrote: »

If immigration officials have leeway to use their considerable experience to ferret out false stories for whatever reason I would be more inclined to take their word for it in all honesty as they are the ones who see and hear all the bogus stories on a daily basis.

Do you not think it would make sense to have a little more clarification in so far as the law is concerned? If nothing else, it may speed up the application process and reduce costs. Leaving the decision in the hands of one person (if that is the case) seems very unfair to me.

Morlar wrote: »

This is the immigration system of Ireland

This is about citizenship, not immigration - he's already here, remember?!?

Morlar wrote: »

If an american or any potential immigrant doesnt agree with the way its run then then they are free to go home.

Should his wife leave too?

Morlar wrote: »

I dont see how just because you want to live here...

He already lives here.

Morlar wrote: »

...you feel you should be given a clean run at slagging off our institutions that cost us millions each year and that work in the interests of Irish people but also as a result of you wanting to live here.

These institutions cost sovtek money too and they work in the interests of all Irish residents, not just Irish people.

Morlar wrote: »

I think there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest.

Again, this is about citizenship, not immigration as such. Would you not like to see a reduction in the time taken in the processing of these applications so as to reduce the cost to the taxpayer?

Morlar wrote: »

Ireland has taken in a record amount of immigrants /refugees in the shortest time imaginable and put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it.

Ireland has taken in a record number of refugees? What sort of record? As for the schools, that is another matter entirely, i.e. appalling planning.

Morlar wrote: »

Again I would point out you are being treated infinitely more fairly than an equivalent Irish person in the united states would be - if they arrived without their paper work in order.

Actually, I went through US immigration in California recently with my wife and we had forgotten to fill in a section on a form. The immigration official was extremely polite and courteous and we had absolutely no hassle getting through what-so-ever.

There have of course been other occasions when I have encountered utter assholes - it depends on who you get.

Morlar wrote: »

If we decide we want to live in for example america or australia thats a different story. We do the research apply and meet the requirements then when our paper work is in order off we go.

You can't really compare the Irish system with the American in particular, which is basically just a lottery as far as I can tell. It's certainly not a system we should aspire to.

Morlar wrote: »

We are already paying to house feed and clothe every bogus asylum seeker in this country so you having to pay for your gnib card out of your salary - I can live with that.

I'm not sure what the connection is between the two? sovtek should have to pay for a GNIB card and asylum seekers cost money, so...

Morlar wrote: »

lets not forget those people have worked and did not draw a single penny from the american welfare system.

Yeah, they're all little angels :rolleyes:

Let's not forget that they have not paid a penny in taxes either.

sovtek, may I ask what you do/did for a living? Feel free to ignore the question - just curious (from an economic perspective!)

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

This doesn't happen in reality, because no solicitor will take a "hopeless" case.

Wrong & this has already been covered in other threads - see 'under-employed solicitors rolling the dice'.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think what he is saying is that it would appear that applications are not being properly assessed by the first instance committee, judging by the large number of applicants who are granted refugee status on appeal.

I thought he already clarified what he was saying himself no?

djpbarry wrote: »

This is about citizenship, not immigration - he's already here, remember?!?

He does not have full legal residency which is a point I think you are aware of.

djpbarry wrote: »

Should his wife leave too?

I think she may be treated less fairly in the american system than this person is treated under the Irish system. Obviously it makes sense to check out the requirements before going - make the application and then when everything is in order at that point would it be ok to go.

djpbarry wrote: »

He already lives here.

When I said - he wants to live here - I referred to 'legally'. Pretty sure you knew what was meant there too.

djpbarry wrote: »

These institutions cost sovtek money too and they work in the interests of all Irish residents, not just Irish people.

They are there primarily to serve my interests as an Irish person - otherwise they would have an open door free for all. The point here was clear also.

djpbarry wrote: »

Again, this is about citizenship, not immigration as such. Would you not like to see a reduction in the time taken in the processing of these applications so as to reduce the cost to the taxpayer?

As I said there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest.

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland has taken in a record number of refugees? What sort of record?

What are you actually trying to say here ? Splitting hairs or have an actual point?

djpbarry wrote: »

As for the schools, that is another matter entirely, i.e. appalling planning.

No - schools are an indicator of the amount of immigrants coming to this country. This seems obvious to me - hence when I said 'put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it."

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, I went through US immigration in California recently with my wife and we had forgotten to fill in a section on a form. The immigration official was extremely polite and courteous and we had absolutely no hassle getting through what-so-ever.

Tourism and immigration as you know are 2 different things. No one is saying that the americans working in immigration are necessarily impolite - just that there rules are more strict. If you go there without paperwork in order you will be deported at your own expense.

djpbarry wrote: »

There have of course been other occasions when I have encountered utter assholes - it depends on who you get.
You can't really compare the Irish system with the American in particular, which is basically just a lottery as far as I can tell.

Yes you can of course compare the 2 different systems. How Irish people are treated when immigrating to the United states (or australia) and in this case how an american wanting to immigrate to Ireland is treated in our system - that is a valid comparison in my book.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's certainly not a system we should aspire to.

Why not ? You were just saying how delightful they are to deal with. I think there are elements of their system that would be useful in our context.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

I think she may be treated less fairly in the american system than this person is treated under the Irish system.

I don't see what that has to do with anything?

Morlar wrote: »

When I said - he wants to live here - I referred to 'legally'.

I don't remember him saying he was here illegally? From what he has said, he appears to be doing his utmost not to invalidate his application for citizenship.

Morlar wrote: »

They are there primarily to serve my interests as an Irish person - otherwise they would have an open door free for all.

No they are not. They are there to serve the interests of everyone living in Ireland, Irish or not.

Morlar wrote: »

As I said there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest.

I'm not sure what a "bogus immigrant" is or how it applies to this situation. Besides, this is somewhat at odds with a post of yours earlier:
"We are already paying to house feed and clothe every bogus asylum seeker in this country..."
So, based on this, you are more than happy to have huge waiting lists for citizenship applications, costing the taxpayer far more than they ought to, but you complain about the cost of asylum seekers, which is largely a result of the delay in processing their applications? Bit of a double-standard, no?

Morlar wrote: »

What are you actually trying to say here ? Splitting hairs or have an actual point?

You said that Ireland has taken in a record number of immigrants/refugees. I asked, quite reasonably, with respect to refugees, what sort of record are we talking about? I am not aware of Ireland breaking any records with respect to refugee intake recently.

Morlar wrote: »

No - schools are an indicator of the amount of immigrants coming to this country.

Schools in this country were bursting at the seams long before we had an influx of immigrants. I remember being in a school in west Dublin 10 years ago that had almost 1,000 students when it was only built for 750. The point is that there is a lack of school places in this country because of atrocious planning. If you build a large residential development and don't build any new schools nearby, then it doesn't matter who moves into the new houses, whether they are from Leitrim or Laos, there's still going to be a chronic shortage of school places at some point in the very near future.

Morlar wrote: »

If you go there without paperwork in order you will be deported at your own expense.

And I am telling you from my own experience, this is not the case. I have travelled to the US several times (once to work there) and although I have encountered rather obnoxious immigration officials on more than one occasion, I have yet to be deported, or refused entry, or whatever way you want to put it.

Morlar wrote: »

Yes you can of course compare the 2 different systems. How Irish people are treated when immigrating to the United states (or australia) and in this case how an american wanting to immigrate to Ireland is treated in our system - that is a valid comparison in my book.

So basically you're saying that just because an Irish person is likely to be treated badly by the US immigration system, then we should be spiteful and treat potential US immigrants poorly? Or are you saying that US immigrants to Ireland should be grateful that our country treats them better than their country would treat us under similar circumstances? Either way, it still does not justify having what looks like a very inefficient system.

Morlar wrote: »

Why not ? You were just saying how delightful they are to deal with.

I was obviously talking about one particular official, not the system as a whole.

Morlar wrote: »

I think there are elements of their system that would be useful in our context.

Such as?

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't see what that has to do with anything?

Comparing other countries immigration procedures and their system with our own.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't remember him saying he was here illegally? From what he has said, he appears to be doing his utmost not to invalidate his application for citizenship.

Fingers crossed some day you invalidate yours I think you meant validate there - or to put it another less hair splitting kind of way to make legal and above board.

djpbarry wrote: »

No they are not. They are there to serve the interests of everyone living in Ireland, Irish or not.

Again with the hair splitting. My original post said that they were there primarily in my interests but also in the interests of potential immigrants. You could probably split hairs for Ireland. Aside from splitting hairs do you actually have a point ? Ever ?

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what a "bogus immigrant" is or how it applies to this situation..

Someone who has no intention of working or contributing to our economy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Besides, this is somewhat at odds with a post of yours earlier:
"We are already paying to house feed and clothe every bogus asylum seeker in this country..."
So, based on this, you are more than happy to have huge waiting lists for citizenship applications, costing the taxpayer far more than they ought to, but you complain about the cost of asylum seekers, which is largely a result of the delay in processing their applications? Bit of a double-standard, no?

Thats not a double standard though it does seem too complicated for you to understand. Properly assessed applications cut down on fraud - in the immediate short term this may mean longer waiting lists for applicants but in the long run it cuts down on years and years of fraud. If you still honestly dont understand that I suggest asking a grown up.

djpbarry wrote: »

Schools in this country were bursting at the seams long before we had an influx of immigrants

The massive intake of people into this country has contributed to the overcrowding problem in our schools system. You can make the point that better planning may have helped to alleviate it - but if you are trying to say there is no connection I would disagree.

djpbarry wrote: »

And I am telling you from my own experience, this is not the case. I have travelled to the US several times (once to work there) and although I have encountered rather obnoxious immigration officials on more than one occasion, I have yet to be deported, or refused entry, or whatever way you want to put it.

If you go there to live with your paper work in order - and you are discovered you will be deported.

djpbarry wrote: »

So basically you're saying that just because an Irish person is likely to be treated badly by the US immigration system, then we should be spiteful and treat potential US immigrants poorly?

The only person saying 'should be spiteful' in this thread is you. I dont recall saying that the americans were spiteful either.

djpbarry wrote: »

Or are you saying that US immigrants to Ireland should be grateful that our country treats them better than their country would treat us under similar circumstances?

Given a choice of that and the constant 'complain complain complain' - whining and bitching then yes they should be grateful.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

Comparing other countries immigration procedures and their system with our own.

The original point you made was that if he doesn't like the way the system works here then he can just go home. I said that it's not that simple because he has married an Irish woman (I am assuming). You then began comparing immigration systems?

Morlar wrote: »

I think you meant validate there

No, I'm quite sure I meant what I said. You implied that he was living here illegally - I said that based on what we have been told, that seems unlikely.

Morlar wrote: »

Someone who has no intention of working or contributing to our economy.

I see. And how many of these people have been granted citizenship in the past?

Morlar wrote: »

Properly assessed applications cut down on fraud - in the immediate short term this may mean longer waiting lists for applicants but in the long run it cuts down on years and years of fraud.

I never said otherwise. The point I am making is that you seem unhappy with the length of time spent assessing applications for asylum. Why should is it ok to spend so much time processing one and not the other?

It is generally much easier to do a background check on someone applying for citizenship than it is someone who is applying for asylum, mainly because a citizenship applicant has been living here for some time. There is no reason why their application cannot be "properly assessed" in a much shorter time than is currently the case (and hence reduce the cost to the taxpayer). You seem to be assuming that time-consuming = properly assessed.

Morlar wrote: »

You can make the point that better planning may have helped to alleviate it...

Alleviate? Proper planning would have meant that the problem would never have existed in the first place!

Morlar wrote: »

If you go there to live with your paper work in order - and you are discovered you will be deported.

I assume you meant to say "If you go there to live without your paper work in order...". So basically you are saying that if an illegal immigrant is discovered in the US, they will be deported. That is different to Ireland how?

Morlar wrote: »

Given a choice of that and the constant 'complain complain complain' - whining and bitching then yes they should be grateful.

They should be grateful that the Irish immigration system is ridiculously inefficient because you’re tired of people complaining about ridiculously inefficient systems?

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

The original point you made was that if he doesn't like the way the system works here then he can just go home. I said that it's not that simple because he has married an Irish woman (I am assuming). You then began comparing immigration systems?

Anyone doesnt like it here is free to leave. The point was made that his wife (as an Irish peson presumably) in the american immigration system may find it more strict than an american person would find ours. Therefore should check requirements in advance - be sure to meet them - get paperwork in order BEFORE buying the plane tickets and physically moving there.

djpbarry wrote: »

And how many of these people have been granted citizenship in the past?

Are you trying to imply that unless somone has the exact numbers then whats being discusses isnt the case ? That seems a flimsy starting point as a basis for your contention.

djpbarry wrote: »

The point I am making is that you seem unhappy with the length of time spent assessing applications for asylum. Why should is it ok to spend so much time processing one and not the other?

Meanwhile on earth what was being put forward by sovtek was that our system was prejudiced. The basis for this was a couple of anecdotes and an immigrant board which is apparently full of bitching and whining. This is not evidence. I said that if delays in assessing applications help to cut down on fraud then I can live with that.

djpbarry wrote: »

They should be grateful that the Irish immigration system is ridiculously inefficient because you’re tired of people complaining about ridiculously inefficient systems?

'Earth to matilda' is a phrase that springs to mind on reading that. That is obviously not what I said- that is what you are claiming that I said which seems to be a habit of yours. Along with splitting hairs and being pedantic to the molecular degree. There is a difference between what I said and what you say that I said. I notice that for the more outlandish things you stop quoting and start paraphrasing.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

Anyone doesnt like it here is free to leave.

But that is not really an option; as you have already said, it is likely that his wife will have problems getting into the US on a permanent basis.

Aside from that, we have no idea what his wife does - she could be a TD for all we know! Perhaps she is not in a position to leave. Perhaps her leaving would be hugely detrimental to her place of work, which (presumably) would be bad for our economy.

In short, this is not a viable option in my opinion.

Morlar wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that unless somone has the exact numbers then whats being discusses isnt the case ?

What I am saying is that I have not seen evidence of foreign-nationals being granted citizenship here and then illegally exploiting the state (in the form of welfare fraud).

Considering the vast majority of welfare fraud is committed by Irish nationals, it would make more sense to overhaul the social welfare system to tackle this problem. Even if we were to stop non-EU nationals from entering the country, welfare fraud would still be a massive problem. Fraud is a criminal issue rather than an immigration issue.

Besides, how can you tell if someone is going to commit fraud?

Morlar wrote: »

I said that if delays in assessing applications help to cut down on fraud then I can live with that.

But delays in assessing applications for asylum are unacceptable? You yourself said (on the asylum process):
"It costs a fortune in time and effort of everyone involved and ties up the system."
Why are applications for citizenship any different?

Morlar wrote: »

That is obviously not what I said- that is what you are claiming that I said

You are basically saying that he should shut up, deal with it and be grateful that we don't deport his ass.

Suppose I apply for permanent residence in say, Australia. Suppose after 12 months I hear nothing from Australian immigration. I ring them and they tell me that my application is being processed. 6 months later, I've heard nothing more, so I ring them again - they tell me my application is being processed. This continues indefinitely. Should I be grateful that their system is not any worse? Of course not. I am perfectly within my rights to tell every Australian I meet that there immigration system is a farce - the fact that I am not Australian has nothing to do with it.

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

But that is not really an option; .....this is not a viable option in my opinion.

Key phrase here being 'in my opinion'. The point here is that there is an alternative to endlessly bitching and moaning and claiming that our system is prejudiced. If its so traumatic and problematic then there is a plan b option.

I would not actually suggest (or more importantly hope) that his wife would leave the country - but that he has that option if our system is so 'prejudiced'. To the best of my knowldege there are complex rules about Irish people marrying non Irish nationals and the area of citizenship being granted - its unfortunate that the rules are required but only a fool would say they are not required.

I can honestly say I would prefer a situation where automatic citizenship was a possibility - however I believe if that were the case it would be massively abused.

djpbarry wrote: »

What I am saying is that I have not seen evidence of foreign-nationals being granted citizenship here and then illegally exploiting the state (in the form of welfare fraud).

If you havent seen it it didnt happen ? Of course it happens - I am not even going to get dragged down that route. We can agree to disagree if you are contending that there is not and never has been any welfare fraud commited in ireland by non irish born people. Your being ridiculous if thats what your trying to say.

djpbarry wrote: »

Fraud is a criminal issue rather than an immigration issue.

When its commited by immigrants it is an immigration issue and a criminal issue.

djpbarry wrote: »

You are basically saying that he should shut up, deal with it and be grateful that we don't deport his ass.

I think a comparative analysis to how an equivalent irish peson in the same situation looking to immigrate to america or australia may put things in perspective.

Having that perspective might cut down the allegations of prejudice and complaining about how long it takes, or, how much of his paperwork or that he has to pay for his gnib card.

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose I apply for permanent residence in say, Australia.

Do you mean applying while in your home country or by just going there?

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

We can agree to disagree if you are contending that there is not and never has been any welfare fraud commited in ireland by non irish born people.

I never said that. We are not talking about immigrants here; we are talking about non-Irish born people who have been granted Irish citizenship. I am saying that I am not aware of any major welfare fraud involving non-Irish born individuals who at some point in their lives became Irish citizens.

Morlar wrote: »

When its commited by immigrants it is an immigration issue and a criminal issue.

I'll agree to disagree. Personally I think it would prove far more fruitful to invest this time and effort in reforming the social welfare system to protect it from abuse by both Irish and non-Irish nationals.

Morlar wrote: »

Do you mean applying while in your home country or by just going there?

I mean applying in my home country.

sovtek

Morlar wrote: »

Comparing other countries immigration procedures and their system with our own.

I didn't compare the Irish system with the American. What I did do was point out that it is hypocritical for Bertie go to America to ask that Irish illegals be treated different than other illegals in America whilst allowing the abysmal treatment of legals in his own country. It should also give an Irish person pause before they start bitching about illegals in their own country, much less legal ones.

Someone who has no intention of working or contributing to our economy.

Unless you are an asylum seeker or holiday maker you have to work to live in Ireland. You have to have a work permit and take it to the GNIB every year (or two years in some cases) and pay EUR 100 for the card that you are required to have as a non-eu national living in ireland (until you get LTR or citizenship).
Therefore there is no such thing as welfare sponger in regards to anyone applying for citizenship or LTR that has been on a work permit. They have also had to live here for five years or more before getting such and therefore have already contributed heavily in taxes, including the immigrant tax, before receiving a permanent status.

Thats not a double standard though it does seem too complicated for you to understand. Properly assessed applications cut down on fraud - in the immediate short term this may mean longer waiting lists for applicants but in the long run it cuts down on years and years of fraud. If you still honestly dont understand that I suggest asking a grown up.

Lenihan is not even claiming that they are trying to do this. His only excuse is that they have had an increase in applicants that has caused. He however would not answer what he was doing to bring the length in processing applications down.
I also linked to an article where the journalist showed how they are systematically refusing non-eu nationals as spouses of eu nationals residency because they have not lived in another state first. This is their stated policy after the Kumar case (google if you want info). This is a violation of the Maastricht Treaty and the freedom of movement of EU nationals and their family members.
They are also refusing to answer how many people they have compensated for doing this and how much it is costing the state nor why they are settling cases out of court and still using the same policy. As well they are asking for anyone settling to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Given a choice of that and the constant 'complain complain complain' - whining and bitching then yes they should be grateful.

So after making our contribution to the economy, keeping our work permits up and paying our taxes we ask that the criteria we met for residency and citizenship be recognized in good faith by the Irish government in a timely manner and with transparency is "bitching and whining"?
That the systematic denial of non-eu spouses be stopped as it is illegal is the same?
Screw that. I am going to bitch and moan all day long and you are going to have to hear it until something changes.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

If this is true, then it is against Irish law, never mind EU law. Your country of origin should not have any bearing on your application. Why would an EU citizen need to apply for Irish citizenship?

There are different reasons for EU nationals to apply for citizenship of another EU country. That's not what I am talking about though. It's non-eu nationals applying for residency as spouses of eu nationals. They are being denied because Lenihan thinks he can do this because of one case in the High Court..Kumar. They are applying it to everyone now.
You put that together with the seemingly intentional slow down of of LTR applications as well as citizenship then it looks like they are just trying to get rid of foreigners.

Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot that can be done about that, as there is no longer an absolute entitlement to citizenship through marriage (possibly to combat "false" marriages).

There is if you've been here 5 of the eight years previous and been legally resident here.

If this is true then I would agree that this is a ridiculous length of time to process any application. How much is this excess costing the taxpayer I wonder?

I'm not sure but I remember reading that after the GNIB card fee they are making a half million euro profit over their budget.

sovtek, may I ask what you do/did for a living? Feel free to ignore the question - just curious (from an economic perspective!)

I'm a Systems/Network Administrator.

LostinBlanch

Sovtek,

is the price of the GNIB card €100 or €1000? I heard someone on the radio last week I think, saying that it was €1,000. :eek:

djpbarry

LostinBlanch wrote: »

is the price of the GNIB card €100 or €1000? I heard someone on the radio last week I think, saying that it was €1,000. :eek:

€100 according to the GNIB webpage. There'd be uproar if it were €1,000 and rightly so!

MuffinsDa

djpbarry wrote: »

€100 according to the GNIB webpage. There'd be uproar if it were €1,000 and rightly so!

He was probably talking about Green Card application fee (with Department of Trade and Enterprise) which is €1000 :

sovtek

MuffinsDa wrote: »

He was probably talking about Green Card application fee (with Department of Trade and Enterprise) which is €1000 :

A green card or a work permit. Thing is it used to be the company that had to pay that. It was illegal for the worker to pay it. Now they say either or.
The GNIB fee has always been back to us though. The GNIB card actually allows you to stay in Ireland and is mandatory.

djpbarry

MuffinsDa wrote: »

He was probably talking about Green Card application fee (with Department of Trade and Enterprise) which is €1000 :

€1,000 for a ****ing permit!!! :eek:
That's ****ing insane! It's amazing anyone wants to come here and work at all!

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

€1,000 for a ****ing permit!!! :eek:
That's ****ing insane! It's amazing anyone wants to come here and work at all!

It was €500 when I first moved here. Now they are as much as €1500.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

Now they are as much as €1500.

Yeah, I just saw this on the webpage. That's every 2 years? What do you get for your money?

LostinBlanch

So I hadn't entirely misheard.
Still too expensive though.