Don't marry a Non-EU Spouse if you are poor or disabled

Pro Hoc Vice

anothernight wrote: »

Ever moved to a country where you don't speak the language? Try getting a job then. In that case, the means test for maintenance would make sense. Except if the sponsor doesn't have the means to maintain the non-EU spouse, I'm not sure how they'd manage if they can't draw benefits themselves (I wouldn't know about that, as I've never drawn benefits anywhere).

They also require a higher income in the case of bringing in an elderly relation: "The financial thresholds will rise significantly where the application is made in respect of a dependent elderly parent."
Doesn't that make you think that they just want to make sure that the sponsor and sponsored won't fall into financial hardship?



Yeah, the child thing is kinda strange. But I haven't really looked into it so I've nothing to say about it.

In the case of Spain, they require a higher income from an EU person than from a Spanish person. They don't say anything about the other spouse's nationality.



As it's only guidelines, I very much doubt all applications will be treated the same. Usually visa applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, which is why they can often be so expensive and take a lot of time to obtain.

"In the case of Spain, they require a higher income from an EU person than from a Spanish person." Are you saying that in Spain a EU national must have a higher income to bring his non eu spouse to Spain.

MadsL

infosys wrote: »

"In the case of Spain, they require a higher income from an EU person than from a Spanish person." Are you saying that in Spain a EU national must have a higher income to bring his non eu spouse to Spain.

That sounds a bit off, I thought EU citizens had the same rights in every EU country

Pro Hoc Vice

MadsL wrote: »

That sounds a bit off, I thought EU citizens had the same rights in every EU country

Yes, and there can be no restrictions on a EU national moving for work and that includes their family.

anothernight

infosys wrote: »

"In the case of Spain, they require a higher income from an EU person than from a Spanish person." Are you saying that in Spain a EU national must have a higher income to bring his non eu spouse to Spain.

I reread it, and I think I'm confusing it with something else now! There's a few different visa bits that people get depending on where they got married, where they're currently residing, etc and for some things there's definitely a distinction made, but apparently in this one there isn't. Well, except for the fact that a Spanish person can get free healthcare, and according to this link the sponsor must get private health insurance for the visa to be considered. As far as I remember, this was because Spain was having a huge problem with medical tourism.
http://extranjeros.empleo.gob.es/es/InformacionInteres/InformacionProcedimientos/CiudadanosComunitarios/hoja103/

Anyway, it also says that the means test is done on a case by case basis, taking into account the personal and family circumstances. Again, it's only a guideline.

godwin

How would this work out if the non EU spouse was female, and she gave birth to a child in Ireland, would the state then be obliged to support only one parent(the Irish one) and not the mother(non EU)?

Annasopra

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

communist Ireland

Reds under the bed?

Gatling

mango salsa wrote: »

Reds under the bed?

Ombudsman bugged ,

Where's Mc Carry we need some witch trials

MadsL

godwin wrote: »

How would this work out if the non EU spouse was female, and she gave birth to a child in Ireland, would the state then be obliged to support only one parent(the Irish one) and not the mother(non EU)?

I guess they would be obliged only to support the citizen(s)

B.A._Baracus

Uriel. wrote: »

Huh? makes no sense.

You opened with you don't disagree with me.
As you know my view is that this is all wrong. But then you went on to list points why you agree with this.

So... you dont disagree with my view, but yet you disagree with my view. Its a just a horse-shit response mate

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MadsL wrote: »

Idiotic argument. I assume you have an opinion on events in Syria or Russia or Cork, or do you not care what happens outside your own front door?

Not comparable as usual in your replies! But no, I don't complain about how other countries apply their laws. In fact I generally try to abide by the rules and regulations in any country I visit. This is not about caring. This is about you looking to dictate how WE apply our laws. You suggesting amendments to OUR welfare regulations. Fix the problems on your vown doorstep before looking for every off the wall reason to find fdault with our attempts to deal with our issues.

CruelCoin

MadsL wrote: »

The rules only changed in Dec 2013.
What if we only married last week?

Did you read this?

"Social welfare payments will not be reckonable as earnings for this purpose."

Because these payments are a handout and not "earned"?

Uriel.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You opened with you don't disagree with me.
As you know my view is that this is all wrong. But then you went on to list points why you agree with this.

So... you dont disagree with my view, but yet you disagree with my view. Its a just a horse-shit response mate

FFS I was responding to a particular point you made, not your whole viewpoint/philosophy.

Talk about slowing down the herd

AngryHippie

anothernight wrote: »

No issue at all. Which is why sponsored visas shouldn't be handed out without proving that the sponsor has financial means to provide for the person they're bringing over. 40k over the last three years is extremely generous for this purpose. If the sponsor is on state benefits (disability, dole or whatever), how do you propose that they don't draw on state benefits? Er....

Besides, some benefits increase if the recipient has a spouse. If they were to bring over a spouse, what exactly do you think would happen?

Bear in mind that those are guidelines for reunification, so assuming reunification works the same in Ireland as in other countries (I honestly don't know), then these guidelines only kick in if the European spouse is in Ireland, and the non-EU spouse is still abroad.

The issue I have with it, is that for me (for example, I may or may not be typical) I am overseas, getting married to a non EEA spouse.
I plan to return to Ireland to live for a number of years so that my parents can get to know my wife (and unborn as yet children) In order to accomplish that, I must earn 40k+ in Ireland to satisfy the support conditions to bring her over or get her a visa.
This means that for the first 6-8 months (at my current pay rate overseas) she will be unable to work, and would have to remain on 90 day visitor visas and do visa run trips to outside of the EU to remain legal.
The other alternative for me is the so called anchor child, where we travel over when she is within 90 days of giving birth, have a baby in Ireland and then hurrah, they are both entitled to visa rights etc.

Either way, the document does not seem to lead to a single coherent policy, and will result in the usual mish-mash disjointed and expensive to administer and understand system, with strings of challenges, appeals, exemptions and reviews that will further complicate and delay and already lengthy process.

Is this what we consider progressive ?
Is this the standard of legislative review we deem acceptable ?
Will it actually improve the situation of anyone ? (apart from the extra civil service employees required to administer this kind of cod-sh1t)

Why is everyone else getting side-tracked into discussions about how disabled someone needs to be, sham marriages, and what the UK and Spain are doing ?

How come we never expect our government systems to achieve even the bare minimum standard that might be acceptable to the private sector, and consistently let them away with their buffoonery and end up paying the bill ?

AAAAGH.:mad:
Rant over:rolleyes:

Pro Hoc Vice

AngryHippie wrote: »

The issue I have with it, is that for me (for example, I may or may not be typical) I am overseas, getting married to a non EEA spouse.
I plan to return to Ireland to live for a number of years so that my parents can get to know my wife (and unborn as yet children) In order to accomplish that, I must earn 40k+ in Ireland to satisfy the support conditions to bring her over or get her a visa.
This means that for the first 6-8 months (at my current pay rate overseas) she will be unable to work, and would have to remain on 90 day visitor visas and do visa run trips to outside of the EU to remain legal.
The other alternative for me is the so called anchor child, where we travel over when she is within 90 days of giving birth, have a baby in Ireland and then hurrah, they are both entitled to visa rights etc.

Either way, the document does not seem to lead to a single coherent policy, and will result in the usual mish-mash disjointed and expensive to administer and understand system, with strings of challenges, appeals, exemptions and reviews that will further complicate and delay and already lengthy process.

Is this what we consider progressive ?
Is this the standard of legislative review we deem acceptable ?
Will it actually improve the situation of anyone ? (apart from the extra civil service employees required to administer this kind of cod-sh1t)

Why is everyone else getting side-tracked into discussions about how disabled someone needs to be, sham marriages, and what the UK and Spain are doing ?

How come we never expect our government systems to achieve even the bare minimum standard that might be acceptable to the private sector, and consistently let them away with their buffoonery and end up paying the bill ?

AAAAGH.:mad:
Rant over:rolleyes:

Its €40,000 over 3 years not a year. For you to have an anchor baby the child does not have to be born in Ireland to be a citizen any child of a citizen born out side Ireland is a citizen, so any child of yours will not need a visa to enter into ireland as your child is irish from birth, I would of course advise placing your child's name on the foreign births registrar.

Finally the document is guidelines, which I can assure you are very badly needed in certain areas more than others. There is no extra civil servants required as the same department in INIS will deal with the same applications as before but now before you make an application you will have sight of the basis on which they make a decision, seems a clever thing to me.

There is of course review of any decision by INIS by the Courts but I for one don't in most cases think an income of some €13,000 a year is too much to ask.

AngryHippie

infosys wrote: »

Its €40,000 over 3 years not a year.

ITs 40k in the past 3 years, so I still have to hit the 40k threshold as it reads.

biketard

AngryHippie wrote: »

ITs 40k in the past 3 years, so I still have to hit the 40k threshold as it reads.

Hey, AngryHippie. Just wondering--does your past 3 years of salary where you are now not count?

AngryHippie

unless you count Australia as an income in Ireland....nope

biketard

AngryHippie wrote: »

unless you count Australia as an income in Ireland....nope

Are you SURE is has to be in Ireland? If it does, then we're ALL screwed (all of us returning home from overseas with a non-EEA partner, I mean).

AngryHippie

That is exactly what I have been getting at.

It's been left nice and vague.

The relevant numbers have gone from a very small number to a significant portion of the roughly 50,000 per year that have had to travel outside the EEA for work, and have formed long term relationships there.

biketard

AngryHippie wrote: »

That is exactly what I have been getting at.

It's been left nice and vague.

The relevant numbers have gone from a very small number to a significant portion of the roughly 50,000 per year that have had to travel outside the EEA for work, and have formed long term relationships there.

Yeah, that's very worrying indeed, and that's kind of what I was getting at in my earlier post--that it's very easy for these changes to suddenly affect perfectly legitimate marriages/partnerships where there is little, if any, chance of the couple being a burden on the state (and actually more likely to be valuable tax payers instead).

I'd really like to see some clarification on that.

Pro Hoc Vice

AngryHippie wrote: »

unless you count Australia as an income in Ireland....nope

This is the guidelines on income,

"An Irish citizen, in order to sponsor an immediate family member, must not have been totally or predominantly reliant on benefits from the Irish State for a continuous period in excess of 2 years immediately prior to the application and must over the three year period prior to application have earned a cumulative gross income over and above any State benefits of not less than €40k."

1. The Irish citizen can not have relied on state benefits from the Irish state for 2 years prior, so no problem there if resident in Australia. 2 must have cumulative income over and above any state benefits of not less than €40,000. Where does it say that income must be from Ireland.

If a decision maker refuses to accept income while abroad or information about job offer in ireland then there would be in my opinion a slam dunk JR. If a citizen has wandered around the world for 3 years with no income, and now wishes to return with new wife in tow then said citizen would need to have their ducks in a row in relation to job prospects. But let's use a example student quilified as doctor in Ireland is a citizen. Then moves to South America to work in a charitable hospital. Earns very little, meets and falls in love marries. Now wishes to return to Ireland has job offer as a junior doctor at 90k a year, I for one having had dealings with INIS do not believe such a person spouse will be refused a Stamp 4.

Pro Hoc Vice

biketard wrote: »

Yeah, that's very worrying indeed, and that's kind of what I was getting at in my earlier post--that it's very easy for these changes to suddenly affect perfectly legitimate marriages/partnerships where there is little, if any, chance of the couple being a burden on the state (and actually more likely to be valuable tax payers instead).

I'd really like to see some clarification on that.

I will say this only one more time, this is not a change in the law, they are guidelines, which have a lot of positive implications for a person who wishes to come to Ireland or have a family member join them. These guidelines do not trump the legislation in the area, nor do they trump the constitution nor the convention.

osarusan

infosys wrote: »

If a decision maker refuses to accept income while abroad or information about job offer in ireland then there would be in my opinion a slam dunk JR. If a citizen has wandered around the world for 3 years with no income, and now wishes to return with new wife in tow then said citizen would need to have their ducks in a row in relation to job prospects. But let's use a example student quilified as doctor in Ireland is a citizen. Then moves to South America to work in a charitable hospital. Earns very little, meets and falls in love marries. Now wishes to return to Ireland has job offer as a junior doctor at 90k a year, I for one having had dealings with INIS do not believe such a person spouse will be refused a Stamp 4.

What about this example: a newly qualified doctor moves to South America as per your example, except when they want to return to Ireland, perhaps to complete further study, there is no job offer for them.

What would happen to a non-EEA spouse in that example?

Pro Hoc Vice

osarusan wrote: »

What about this example: a newly qualified doctor moves to South America as per your example, except when they want to return to Ireland, perhaps to complete further study, there is no job offer for them.

What would happen to a non-EEA spouse in that example?

As he would be studying for a PhD I would think its no issue at all, just as it would currently be. As I said these are guidelines to deal with the run of the mill situations. The weird and wonderful will have to be as they where decided on a case by case basis. Noting in the law has changed, but now many people will know in advance what is expected.

I can assure you the courts would have a field day if a returning doctor was refused. BTW he or she would not need to go to further study due to lack of jobs, there is currently difficulty filling job positions in med.

All immigration decisions by the State have and remain a balancing act, the individual on the one hand and his rights, the state on the other charged with protecting to common good. But the rights of the person must be fairly weighed.

maninasia

looking_around wrote: »

How many people, in all fairness, meet others outside of Europe,and decide to marry without having funds to set them up? How many people are going to be so affected by this?
(btw, I personally know of 2 sham marriages.. this will help prevent the likes happening.)

I don't think Ireland is being unreasonable. Most countries have the similar laws.
Gosh there's enough people in Europe to choose from.

and if you happen, to find someone outside of the EU and they can't move here..well move there...or you know, stay long-distance for a little while longer, won't kill anyone.

On the disables comment. I'm pretty sure they'd have to come up with exemptions (if not now, when it actually comes up). It's bad enough that disabled are forced to be poor.

But, I bring up again.. There's enough people in Europe to find your "soulmate" from.

Are you trying to tell people who to love and who to marry?

Because that's what it sounds like.

MadsL

Steven Uninterested Orchestra wrote: »

Not comparable as usual in your replies! But no, I don't complain about how other countries apply their laws. In fact I generally try to abide by the rules and regulations in any country I visit. This is not about caring. This is about you looking to dictate how WE apply our laws. You suggesting amendments to OUR welfare regulations. Fix the problems on your vown doorstep before looking for every off the wall reason to find fdault with our attempts to deal with our issues.

Do you have family in other countries, as I have family in Ireland potentially affected by such guidelines.

You seem to forget that emigrants have an interest in the country they have left, either through family there or our intent to return.

But according to you, I and other emigrants should not worry our "pretty little heads" as you have it all in hand.

maninasia

seb65 wrote: »

I don't understand why people are under the illusion that people can just walk in here and claim benefits.

I am not allowed to claim state benefits. Neither is any person who has mere permission to remain! In order to claim benefits, non-eu nationals have to become citizens (3/5 years residence for spouses), or have to have worked here (for jobseekers) in which case they've paid taxes and are entitled to benefits like any other taxpayer.

Also, despite the fact that my husband pays taxes into a public healthcare system (and effectively, as his spouse, I pay those taxes too) I must show proof of private health insurance, so as not to be a burden on the state.

Everyone acts like people can just arrive on the shores of Ireland and bounce into the local SW office. It doesn't work that way.

Exactly.

What are they doing here is copying the terrible UK legislation as part of populist anti-immigration measures, drumming up support on the false pretenses that new immigrants are entitled to welfare benefits.

They are not.

maninasia

Dord wrote: »

The current system treats Irish & EEA persons differently in respect to this. It's ridiculous but the truth. I'm not sure if these "guidelines" clarify that or enforce it further.

The EU supports free movement of it's citizens and their families.

Backwards places like the Ireland and the UK put up arbitrary financial barriers to discriminate against their own citizens who have resided overseas and had a family as per their human rights.

Why restrict your own citizens human rights? For what purpose, new immigrants are NOT entitled to welfare such as the dole without working first.

MadsL

maninasia wrote: »

What are they doing here is copying the terrible UK legislation

without the exemption for those in receipt of disability benefits too...

AngryHippie

infosys wrote: »

This is the guidelines on income,
1. The Irish citizen can not have relied on state benefits from the Irish state for 2 years prior, so no problem there if resident in Australia. 2 must have cumulative income over and above any state benefits of not less than €40,000. Where does it say that income must be from Ireland.

Where does it say that it doesn't.

it says any state benefits, not any state benefits.

Normal procedure with immigration in the countries that I have had to deal with do not consider your wage in your home state when making decisions, only the wage you earn in their own region,
For example IMMI Australia has a threshold for an employer sponsorship visa, and a list of skills that are in shortage, evidence to prove you can earn that, is a contract or letter of offer from an Aussie company, or requisite qualifications for the skilled job in shortage.
Beyond that, for spouse and de-facto relationships, it's fairly straightforward, once you have a sponsor, you are allowed to work to support yourself and/or partner/sponsor. They are more concerned with medical checks and criminal records than how you pay for it, either way the migrant has no right to social welfare until naturalization, and is entitled to hold a medicare card, but must undergo a full medical to establish prior conditions (which also must be declared)

What I am suggesting is that the new policy be more coherent in its approach, state exactly what the limits and requirements are, and that the same gets enshrined in the legislation (which afik is under review, with a new act and regulations due in 2014)

Instead of bodging together the old with the new....again, come up with one coherent framework and supporting Policy, Act and Regulations, that cut down on the bullsh1te appeals of people that are perfectly entitled to entry under the constitution having to go through the cost and delay of a JR.

How hard can it be ?

How many apologist civil servants are we going to encounter that are prepared to whinge about how hard it is and make it harder for the people is is supposed to serve ?
It's their job to create and manage an efficient and equitable system, it's not my job as a citizen to have to bring these clowns to court to get what I am entitled to.

This is why the bloody country is in the dunny and is leaking it's willing and able next generation....is legislation to discourage their return really the answer ?