Immigrant parents claiming citizenship.

MyKeyG

Not sure if this is connected to the Lisbon treaty but I saw on the news recently that Europe have overturned the law that states a parent can not claim Irish citizenship on the basis their child was born here. Can someone remind me of how the original law came about? I seem to recall it was as a result of a national vote or am I dreaming things?

oscarBravo

I thought it was about residency, rather than citizenship?

The judgement will have interesting implications in other EU member states. My Danish brother-in-law lives in Chile with his Chilean wife and their two children - if he decided to move home, she couldn't move with him as she's not an EU citizen. As I read the judgement, that policy is now in conflict with EU law.

caseyann

MyKeyG wrote: »

Not sure if this is connected to the Lisbon treaty but I saw on the news recently that Europe have overturned the law that states a parent can not claim Irish citizenship on the basis their child was born here. Can someone remind me of how the original law came about? I seem to recall it was as a result of a national vote or am I dreaming things?

You are dreaming things

caseyann

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought it was about residency, rather than citizenship?

The judgement will have interesting implications in other EU member states. My Danish brother-in-law lives in Chile with his Chilean wife and their two children - if he decided to move home, she couldn't move with him as she's not an EU citizen. As I read the judgement, that policy is now in conflict with EU law.

Thats is awful Should be allowed to move with his family back if he wants.

The Orb

Parents could never claim citizenship on the basis of their child's citizenship. The recent ruling means that parents of Irish citizen children, regardless of their own status in the country,must be allowed residence in the country and be given a work permit. A ridiculous judgement and yet another means to circumvent the immigration laws. Needless to say once given a work permit they'll soon be demanding welfare. This applies to every EU country but is more relevant in this country thanks to the thousands of children born in this state to illegally resident parents who targeted this country thanks to the clause in the Anglo Irish agreement stating that every child born on the island, north and south, was entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not entitle parents to a right if residency but now the European Court of Justice has said otherwise. It is a total joke. So the lesson is if you are illegally in the state just knock up an Irish citizen or be knocked up by one and hey presto you can stay.

caseyann

The Orb wrote: »

Parents could never claim citizenship on the basis of their child's citizenship. The recent ruling means that parents of Irish citizen children, regardless of their own status in the country,must be allowed residence in the country and be given a work permit. A ridiculous judgement and yet another means to circumvent the immigration laws. Needless to say once given a work permit they'll soon be demanding welfare. This applies to every EU country but is more relevant in this country thanks to the thousands of children born in this state to illegally resident parents who targeted this country thanks to the clause in the Anglo Irish agreement stating that every child born on the island, north and south, was entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not entitle parents to a right if residency but now the European Court of Justice has said otherwise. It is a total joke. So the lesson is if you are illegally in the state just knock up an Irish citizen or be knocked up by one and hey presto you can stay.

Yep brings into the area of chancers. Have a baby with an Irish girl or guy and hang around till all settled and then file for divorce take half and win win.

The Orb

caseyann wrote: »

Thats is awful Should be allowed to move with his family back if he wants.

If the children are Danish citizens then the Chilean mother can claim residency and a work permit in Denmark

caseyann

The Orb wrote: »

If the children are Danish citizens then the Chilean mother can claim residency and a work permit in Denmark

But if they arent,which i am assuming oscarBravo is saying she cant.Long line of chasing down another avenue.Awful way to be especially when people show genuine long last relationship.

MyKeyG

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought it was about residency, rather than citizenship?

The judgement will have interesting implications in other EU member states. My Danish brother-in-law lives in Chile with his Chilean wife and their two children - if he decided to move home, she couldn't move with him as she's not an EU citizen. As I read the judgement, that policy is now in conflict with EU law.

Ah yes residency, I knew it was amended a few years back when they thought refugees were breeding for residency. It's the details of that amendment I was trying to find out but just spotted it here IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004. It is indeed now in conflict with EU law.

The Orb

caseyann wrote: »

But if they arent,which i am assuming oscarBravo is saying she cant.Long line of chasing down another avenue.Awful way to be especially when people show genuine long last relationship.

The father is Danish, the children are entitled to Danish citizenship. It's perfectly straight forward now.

The Orb

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah yes residency, I knew it was amended a few years back when they thought refugees were breeding for residency. It's the details of that amendment I was trying to find out but just spotted it here IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004. It is indeed now in conflict with EU law.

It has nothing to do with that act, it is to do with EU Treaty rights.

caseyann

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah yes residency, I knew it was amended a few years back when they thought refugees were breeding for residency. It's the details of that amendment I was trying to find out but just spotted it here IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004. It is indeed now in conflict with EU law.

Breeding for residencey is a bit harsh of a word to use.

The Orb wrote: »

The father is Danish, the children are entitled to Danish citizenship. It's perfectly straight forward now.

Ah i see thanks.

The Orb

caseyann wrote: »

Breeding for residencey is a bit harsh of a word to use.



Ah i see thanks.

It may sound harsh or coarse but illegal immigrants and asylum seekers (not refugees) WERE breeding for residency, they saw a loophole to be exploited and exploit it they did. Financially it is costing the state very dearly. And now it's going to get worse.

caseyann

The Orb wrote: »

It may sound harsh or coarse but illegal immigrants and asylum seekers (not refugees) WERE breeding for residency, they saw a loophole to be exploited and exploit it they did. Financially it is costing the state very dearly. And now it's going to get worse.

Of course i know that.
How will it get worse now?

MyKeyG

The Orb wrote: »

It has nothing to do with that act, it is to do with EU Treaty rights.

Yes but how do those rights affect the act?

The Orb

caseyann wrote: »

Of course i know that.
How will it get worse now?

Now that the state is obliged to give work permits to these parents it's only a matter if time before they start demanding social welfare if they can't find work. The majority of those granted residency under McDowell's IBC scheme are now entirely welfare dependent, costing the state hundreds of millions of euro each year. No wonder the country is banjaxed.

MyKeyG

caseyann wrote: »

Breeding for residencey is a bit harsh of a word to use.

I thought that at the time but IMO I found it the most fitting term.

The Orb

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yes but how do those rights affect the act?

Read the Zambrano judgement, citizen children must be allowed exercise their EU Treaty rights which now entails having their parents, on whom they depend, with them. The non-citizen parents must be facilitated in supporting their children. I don't have the text in front if me. It is an astonishingly stupid judgement and will have serious repercussions throughout the EU. The only way around thus is to amend the relevant article.

donkey balls

That aul bint rosemary&residents against racism was on news talk and wanted those parents mainly from Nigeria brought back to Ireland at the tax payers expense,How f**king unreal is that we have Irish&EU citizens that worked here finding them selves either working for a lot less or on the dole through no fault of there own trying to scrap by and that moran plus the imigrant counsel wanting us to pay for flights.

MyKeyG

The Orb wrote: »

Read the Zambrano judgement, citizen children must be allowed exercise their EU Treaty rights which now entails having their parents, on whom they depend, with them. The non-citizen parents must be facilitated in supporting their children. I don't have the text in front if me. It is an astonishingly stupid judgement and will have serious repercussions throughout the EU. The only way around thus is to amend the relevant article.

Yes I know that, I think that's where our wires were crossed. I'm not talking about EU Treaty as such. I know what the EU Treaty states. What I'm considering is how it affects The Irish Nationality and Citizenship act 2004 which went so far as to state that even a child born here whose parents were foreign nationals could not claim residency. I'm considering it in the sense that is this the first attack by Europe on our right to legislate as I'm sure that act went to vote by the people.

The Orb

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yes I know that, I think that's where our wires were crossed. I'm not talking about EU Treaty as such. I know what the EU Treaty states. What I'm considering is how it affects The Irish Nationality and Citizenship act 2004 which went so far as to state that even a child born here whose parents were foreign nationals could not claim residency. I'm considering it in the sense that is this the first attack by Europe on our right to legislate as I'm sure that act went to vote by the people.

Pure citizenship ius soli (automatic purely by birth in the state) was removed by the referendum in 2003. Zambrano doesn't affect it at all. The Zambrano case is an interpretation of Article 20 as requested by Belgium following an opinion by an advocate general. Zambrano is solely about the rights of the non-eu parents of eu citizen children in the citizen state . The right of residency is not portable eu wide.

southsiderosie

The Orb wrote: »

Parents could never claim citizenship on the basis of their child's citizenship. The recent ruling means that parents of Irish citizen children, regardless of their own status in the country,must be allowed residence in the country and be given a work permit. A ridiculous judgement and yet another means to circumvent the immigration laws. Needless to say once given a work permit they'll soon be demanding welfare. This applies to every EU country but is more relevant in this country thanks to the thousands of children born in this state to illegally resident parents who targeted this country thanks to the clause in the Anglo Irish agreement stating that every child born on the island, north and south, was entitled to citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not entitle parents to a right if residency but now the European Court of Justice has said otherwise. It is a total joke. So the lesson is if you are illegally in the state just knock up an Irish citizen or be knocked up by one and hey presto you can stay.

Unless I am reading the ruling incorrectly, this would only apply to the parents of children who had citizenship prior to the change in 2004 (since jus soli citizenship was ended). How many people would this ruling actually apply to, since this avenue has essentially been pinched off for the last seven years?

The Orb

southsiderosie wrote: »

Unless I am reading the ruling incorrectly, this would only apply to the parents of children who had citizenship prior to the change in 2004 (since jus soli citizenship was ended). How many people would this ruling actually apply to, since this avenue has essentially been pinched off for the last seven years?

No, it applies to the parent of any Irish citizen child, so if an illegal immigrant or failed asylum seeker has a child with an Irish citizen then voila, here's your residency and work permit. Watch the birth rate soar by the end of the year!

southsiderosie

The Orb wrote: »

No, it applies to the parent of any Irish citizen child, so if an illegal immigrant or failed asylum seeker has a child with an Irish citizen then voila, here's your residency and work permit. Watch the birth rate soar by the end of the year!

But birthright citizenship ended in 2004. Again, is there any sense of the scale here? I am not saying that people won't try to take advantage, but a lot of these issues were closed off with the 2004 citizenship change, so this legislation is effectively grandfathering in an unknown number of people.

MyKeyG

The Orb wrote: »

Pure citizenship ius soli (automatic purely by birth in the state) was removed by the referendum in 2003. Zambrano doesn't affect it at all. The Zambrano case is an interpretation of Article 20 as requested by Belgium following an opinion by an advocate general. Zambrano is solely about the rights of the non-eu parents of eu citizen children in the citizen state . The right of residency is not portable eu wide.

Right, gotcha. Cheers.

The Orb

southsiderosie wrote: »

But birthright citizenship ended in 2004. Again, is there any sense of the scale here? I am not saying that people won't try to take advantage, but a lot of these issues were closed off with the 2004 citizenship change, so this legislation is effectively grandfathering in an unknown number of people.

A lot were closed off, but if somebody illegally in the state now has a child WITH AN IRISH CITIZEN they will have to be given residency and a work permit.

oscarBravo

The Orb wrote: »

If the children are Danish citizens then the Chilean mother can claim residency and a work permit in Denmark

The children are Danish citizens, and their Chilean mother can't claim residency in Denmark. That's the law as it currently stands in Denmark, and it looks like it will have to change now.

It seems that you feel she shouldn't be allowed to live in Denmark with her children. Why is that?

RandomName2

MyKeyG wrote: »

Not sure if this is connected to the Lisbon treaty but I saw on the news recently that Europe have overturned the law that states a parent can not claim Irish citizenship on the basis their child was born here. Can someone remind me of how the original law came about? I seem to recall it was as a result of a national vote or am I dreaming things?

Yes - as far as I can see it has to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

As the EU Courts gain more control over our laws with successive EU constitutional amending treaties, so much more of this sort of thing we are likely to see.

Although this doesn't technically affect our citizenship laws, for what's its worth it gives ipso facto citizenship by granting open ended residency to any woman (and her partner) who gives birth in this country.

southsiderosie

The Orb wrote: »

A lot were closed off, but if somebody illegally in the state now has a child WITH AN IRISH CITIZEN they will have to be given residency and a work permit.

Yes and I am saying what are the numbers for that? I don't think this ruling will apply to that many people given that the jus soli loophole was closed seven years ago, and regardless of that, the rules for Ireland have always been that a child was entitled to citizenship through their parent or grandparent.

I guess there are two different issues here. One is the "anchor baby" question (to use a somewhat perjorative term), when neither of the parents are Irish citizens - this loophole was closed, and this rulign is simply a grandfathering mechanism. The other issue is having a baby with an Irish citizen, and having the right to stay through the jus sanguinis citizenship status of that child. From a family law perspective, the EU ruling makes sense, as to do otherwise would potentially deny the child access to one of its parents (if one parent took the child back to the home country in order to be able to support it or was deported without the child).

The main difference between EU courts and national legislative processes is that the EU courts use a human rights perspective to deal with these kinds of issues, and international norms are very clear in this regard (hence why family reunification rules are common in most Western democracies). While the concerns about future fraud are debatable, the EU court's ruling is very consistent with Western legal norms shaping both immigration and family law.

The Orb

oscarBravo wrote: »

The children are Danish citizens, and their Chilean mother can't claim residency in Denmark. That's the law as it currently stands in Denmark, and it looks like it will have to change now.

It seems that you feel she shouldn't be allowed to live in Denmark with her children. Why is that?

I don't feel that at all and I'm offended that you would suggest it. I don't know the Danish citizenship laws, I am assuming that the children will be Danish citizens, I was merely stating a fact, as I see it, in line with the new judgement.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes - as far as I can see it has to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

It has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Try reading the judgment in the case.

The Zambrano kids are EU citizens - thanks to a provision of Belgian law. As EU citizens they have certain rights - those cannot be impinged on by a member state (i.e. Belgium) just because they prove inconvenient.

AlekSmart

donkey balls wrote: »

That aul bint rosemary&residents against racism was on news talk and wanted those parents mainly from Nigeria brought back to Ireland at the tax payers expense,

And here,Donkey Balls lies the true nub of the question.

Perception.....and be assured that the "Professionals! who make a living from this type of Human Trafficking will be all over this judgement as they suck in an ever increasing customer base.

The PERCEPTION now being put about,by RAR and other ill suited agencies is that yes Ireland is now open for business again.

Unless the Government moves swiftly to challenge and disprove that we might as well put RAR in Government themselves.

Does nobody ask themselves why,during the entire course of her massive trawl throuigh the Irish Legal System,Pamela Izevbekhai consistently refused to name those who facilitated her incredible journey from Nigeria to Ireland....:rolleyes:

Humans eh!

Apparently the Irish Government /taxpayer is obliged to repatriate failed residency claimants that are now permitted residency and all the benefits accruing to same.

Joe Duffy brigade will have a spittle flecked field day.

oscarBravo

The Orb wrote: »

I don't feel that at all and I'm offended that you would suggest it. I don't know the Danish citizenship laws, I am assuming that the children will be Danish citizens, I was merely stating a fact, as I see it, in line with the new judgement.

I remain confused. You claim to be offended at the suggestion that you don't think the Chilean mother of Danish children should be allowed to live and work in the EU. And yet, you said:

The Orb wrote: »

The non-citizen parents must be facilitated in supporting their children. ... It is an astonishingly stupid judgement and will have serious repercussions throughout the EU. The only way around thus is to amend the relevant article.

Do you see why I'm confused? It is only as a result of this judgement - which you describe as "astonishingly stupid" - that the Danish children can have their Chilean mother live with them in Denmark.

Help me out, please.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Try reading the judgment in the case.

The Zambrano kids are EU citizens - thanks to a provision of Belgian law. As EU citizens they have certain rights - those cannot be impinged on by a member state (i.e. Belgium) just because they prove inconvenient.

So you’re saying it ain’t to do with Lisbon – it’s to do with Maastricht.

However, the ruling is not that EU citizens are EU citizens, but that immigrants who have children in Ireland are entitled to permanent residence (providing their children remain here). That has nothing to do with EU citizenship, notwithstanding the particulars of the case you are quoting.

The Orb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I remain confused. You claim to be offended at the suggestion that you don't think the Chilean mother of Danish children should be allowed to live and work in the EU. And yet, you said:

Do you see why I'm confused? It is only as a result of this judgement - which you describe as "astonishingly stupid" - that the Danish children can have their Chilean mother live with them in Denmark.

Help me out, please.

As I stated I am not familiar with Danish immigration laws, I don't how it applies to the Dane and his Chilean wife. I think it is a bad judgement because it will facilitate non eu nationals to flout normal immigration laws by simply having a child. I never stated that it was a bad judgement directly in relation to that Danish national so please don't accuse me of doing so. All I have done is give my own opinion of the judgement in general and explain how it may apply in certain cases.

oscarBravo

The Orb wrote: »

As I stated I am not familiar with Danish immigration laws, I don't how it applies to the Dane and his Chilean wife. I think it is a bad judgement because it will facilitate non eu nationals to flout normal immigration laws by simply having a child. I never stated that it was a bad judgement directly in relation to that Danish national so please don't accuse me of doing so. All I have done is give my own opinion of the judgement in general and explain how it may apply in certain cases.

I am familiar with Danish immigration laws, and I do know how it applies in the case I cited. That means that I can see that there are a number of implications of this judgement, some of which are critically important to right what are clearly existing wrongs.

Now, if it's so desperately important to you to keep non-EU citizens out of the EU that you're prepared to either split up a family or prevent it from moving home, fair enough. I can't relate to that sort of xenophobia, but I'm sure it makes sense to you.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

if it's so desperately important to you to keep non-EU citizens out [...] you're prepared to [...] prevent it from moving home.

[...]

I can't relate to that sort of xenophobia

Lack of logical junction FTW!

Loving the xenophobic straw-man btw!

The Orb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am familiar with Danish immigration laws, and I do know how it applies in the case I cited. That means that I can see that there are a number of implications of this judgement, some of which are critically important to right what are clearly existing wrongs.

Now, if it's so desperately important to you to keep non-EU citizens out of the EU that you're prepared to either split up a family or prevent it from moving home, fair enough. I can't relate to that sort of xenophobia, but I'm sure it makes sense to you.

You disgust me, I have never said any thing of the sort and am not a xenophobe. I have pointed out what the implication of the law is on EU nations and how illegal individuals can force a member state to give them a work permit. You are an ideologue throwing insults at people because they dont adhere to you point of view. Have the thread to yourself and insult and many as you can.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lack of logical junction FTW!

If you're having trouble following my logic, you could always ask for a clarification - but I suspect there are none so blind as them that will not see.

Loving the xenophobic straw-man btw!

Nice - using an accusation of straw-manning as a straw man argument. Very metaphysical, but contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion, I'm afraid.

The Orb wrote: »

You disgust me, I have never said any thing of the sort and am not a xenophobe.

Xenophobes rarely believe themselves to be xenophobic, for some reason. Maybe there's a reason for desperately wanting to keep foreigners out - no matter what the collateral damage - other than xenophobia, but I haven't seen any sign of such a reason in your arguments thus far.

I have pointed out what the implication of the law is on EU nations and how illegal individuals can force a member state to give them a work permit.

And I have pointed out how, in the absence of this ruling, EU member states are allowed to deny EU citizens their human rights. Your position is that the human rights of EU citizens should be sacrificed in order to keep non-EU citizens out of the union.

Once again, if there's a basis in logic for this position that doesn't involve xenophobia - if there's a concrete reason to deny EU citizens their human rights - please share it.

You are an ideologue throwing insults at people because they dont adhere to you point of view. Have the thread to yourself and insult and many as you can.

Let's see - I think EU citizens' human rights should be protected, and you think that EU citizens' human rights should be sacrificed in order to keep foreigners out of the Union - but I'm the offensive ideologue?

Interesting.

caseyann

OcarBravo i cant see anything xenophobic in the orbs posts i think you might be reading his posts wrong.

oscarBravo

caseyann wrote: »

OcarBravo i cant see anything xenophobic in the orbs posts i think you might be reading his posts wrong.

Maybe I am.

Prior to this judgement, Denmark was allowed to deny Danish children their human rights by not allowing their mother to live in Denmark with them. Subsequent to this judgement, there is the possibility that non-EU citizens will be allowed to live and work in the EU by virtue of having children who are EU citizens.

The Orb has insisted that the judgement must be reversed, thereby implying that it's more important to prevent non-EU citizens from gaining residency than to allow EU citizens their human rights. Now - yet again - if there's an argument for denying people their basic rights in order to keep foreigners out that isn't informed by xenophobia, I'll be happy to hear it.

Nodin

The Orb wrote: »

Parents could never claim citizenship on the basis of their child's citizenship. The recent ruling means that parents of Irish citizen children, regardless of their own status in the country,must be allowed residence in the country and be given a work permit. A ridiculous judgement and yet another means to circumvent the immigration laws. Needless to say once given a work permit they'll soon be demanding welfare. .........(snip).

That has the distinct odour of xenophobia to me.

The Orb wrote:

Now that the state is obliged to give work permits to these parents it's only a matter if time before they start demanding social welfare if they can't find work. The majority of those granted residency under McDowell's IBC scheme are now entirely welfare dependent, costing the state hundreds of millions of euro each year. No wonder the country is banjaxed.

You've figures for that?

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you’re saying it ain’t to do with Lisbon – it’s to do with Maastricht.

It has to do with a number of judgments (dating from the late 90's and early 00's) based on Maastricht (or the TEU to give it its correct name) and also on the CoE's ECHR (from the early 50's) which was, and is, used as a legal precedent by the ECJ.

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, the ruling is not that EU citizens are EU citizens, but that immigrants who have children in Ireland are entitled to permanent residence (providing their children remain here).

The court did not make that ruling - read the judgment.

RandomName2 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with EU citizenship, notwithstanding the particulars of the case you are quoting.

It has everything to do with EU citizenship and the rights that go with it. The Zambrano kids are EU citizens - thanks to Belgian law - and, hence, have the same rights as any other EU citizens. The court has essentially upheld the "special position" of the family within society with its judgment.

Monife

The Orb wrote: »

Now that the state is obliged to give work permits to these parents it's only a matter if time before they start demanding social welfare if they can't find work. The majority of those granted residency under McDowell's IBC scheme are now entirely welfare dependent, costing the state hundreds of millions of euro each year. No wonder the country is banjaxed.

Have you got statistics to prove that?

There was 127,827 non nationals living in Ireland in 2006, this includes Americans, Canadians, Russians, Asians & Africans.

As this includes all non nationals, then that figure would be broken down into work permit holders, spouses/family members of EU/Irish nationals, working holiday visa holders, visit visa holders, refugees/asylum seekers and IBC people.

Even if you were to say that 1/4 of that figure were IBC people (which I doubt), that would be 31,956. Not all of these people would be on benefits so stating that it costs the country 100's of millions is incorrect.

http://cso.ie/statistics/nationalityagegroup.htm - CSO 2006 Population Figures

snorkleberry

I don't see the purpose in accusing the orb of being "xenophobic".

It is a problematic question. Certainly anyone would agree that ideally, parents should be allowed to live where their children wish to live, even if they are not citizens. The issue is that such rules don't exist in a vacuum. It is clear that people from many countries less economically advanced than Ireland, for example, will go to great lengths to acquire immigration rights. Why is it "xenophobic" to consider the impact of immigration policy on behavior when evaluating policies?

Sure one may weigh the pros and cons differently than the Orb, and come to different policy conclusions, but simply because one disagrees with the Orb doesn't make him a xenophobe. In fact, individuals who accuse those they disagree with of being <insert derogatory term here>s, themselves might wish to be a bit more tolerant.

sombaht

oscarBravo wrote: »

Prior to this judgement, Denmark was allowed to deny Danish children their human rights by not allowing their mother to live in Denmark with them.

Bit late jumping in here but would the Chilean wife not have been eligible to apply for a spouse visa? Should not have been an issue if the Danish authorities recognised the marriage as a valid Danish one.
Went through similar situation 9 years ago when my wife (Thai) moved here. Once the Thai marriage papers were translated and stamped at the Irish embassy she was allowed apply for a spouse visa. Being married didn't mean she would automatically be granted one mind. Would think that the Danish immigration laws would be broadly similar to Irish ones.

Cheers,
sombaht

oscarBravo

snorkleberry wrote: »

I don't see the purpose in accusing the orb of being "xenophobic".

I evaluated his arguments, which seemed to conclude that it's more important to keep foreigners out of the Union than to allow a mother to live with her children in the country of the children's citizenship. I asked for an explanation of that conclusion that isn't informed by xenophobia, and - tellingly - have had lots of criticism of my conclusion, but little in the way of counter-argument.

It is a problematic question. Certainly anyone would agree that ideally, parents should be allowed to live where their children wish to live, even if they are not citizens.

Yes, it's a problematic question. The Court weighed up the conflicting goals, and concluded that the human rights of children outweigh the immigration rules of nations. Some people disagree, and seem to feel that the children's human rights are of lesser importance than the goal of keeping non-EU citizens out of the Union.

Now, for approximately the nine millionth time in this thread, I'd welcome an explanation for that set of priorities that isn't rooted in xenophobia, rather than the tiresome side discussion of whether or not I'm even allowed to use the x-word.

The issue is that such rules don't exist in a vacuum. It is clear that people from many countries less economically advanced than Ireland, for example, will go to great lengths to acquire immigration rights. Why is it "xenophobic" to consider the impact of immigration policy on behavior when evaluating policies?

It's not. For example, I'm pretty certain the Court evaluated the impact of immigration policy, and I'm equally certain that the Court isn't xenophobic - but that's because the Court decided that human rights outweigh immigration policy concerns.

Sure one may weigh the pros and cons differently than the Orb, and come to different policy conclusions, but simply because one disagrees with the Orb doesn't make him a xenophobe.

I don't consider his views xenophobic because I disagree with him; I consider his views xenophobic because he raises the spectre of Europe being flooded with chancers who will knock up EU women (or get knocked up by EU men) in order to drain our precious resources by living on welfare for the rest of their lives, and implies that denying EU citizens their human rights is a price worth paying to avoid this tabloidesque scenario.

In fact, individuals who accuse those they disagree with of being <insert derogatory term here>s, themselves might wish to be a bit more tolerant.

Perhaps you should focus more on the arguments under discussion, and less on perceived insults.

oscarBravo

sombaht wrote: »

Bit late jumping in here but would the Chilean wife not have been eligible to apply for a spouse visa? Should not have been an issue if the Danish authorities recognised the marriage as a valid Danish one.
Went through similar situation 9 years ago when my wife (Thai) moved here. Once the Thai marriage papers were translated and stamped at the Irish embassy she was allowed apply for a spouse visa. Being married didn't mean she would automatically be granted one mind. Would think that the Danish immigration laws would be broadly similar to Irish ones.

They're not. Danish immigration laws are draconian.

caseyann

oscarBravo wrote: »

They're not. Danish immigration laws are draconian.

Its a shame when people have been together a while and showed their marriage is real,she should be allowed to move there in your brother in laws situation.
I hope they get it sorted best of luck to them.:)

surefinder

The Orb wrote: »

Now that the state is obliged to give work permits to these parents it's only a matter if time before they start demanding social welfare if they can't find work. The majority of those granted residency under McDowell's IBC scheme are now entirely welfare dependent, costing the state hundreds of millions of euro each year. No wonder the country is banjaxed.

I have a child to support (irish citizen) I don't have social welfare... There are jobs available, but, are looking for resident, eu or irish citizen. I cannot apply as I am not resident. this news is the only hope i have for my child future.