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

Pro Hoc Vice

clairefontaine wrote: »

So I suppose they are anticipating that with so much emigration, it is inevitable that those emigrants will find spouses while they are abroad and not Ireland is going to make it harder and harder for them to return.

Is it hard to get Irish citizenship through marriage?

3 years post marriage but must be resident in Ireland.

maninasia

Of course there are lots of things that stop people, cost, inconvenience, language barriers and alternative visa regulations being just a few.

But yes it can be done (as you seem to agree). My point then is..what's the point of all these costly roadblocks that the EU doesn't even agree with but are targeted against your own citizens?

maninasia

clairefontaine wrote: »

So I suppose they are anticipating that with so much emigration, it is inevitable that those emigrants will find spouses while they are abroad and not Ireland is going to make it harder and harder for them to return.

Is it hard to get Irish citizenship through marriage?

I doubt there is much 'thinking' going into this beyond copying the UK for no good reason. Look at all the thanks that the completely erroneous 'stopping welfare migrants is a good thing' got at the start of the thread. It's popular with the masses and government like to blame 'problems' on outsiders. It's always convenient. The Tories in the UK have been playing this card with the UKIP breathing down their backs.

Besides, what would be the actual problem with bringing a non-EEA spouse back? I'd like somebody to nail down the problem and I haven't seen anything yet. Ireland is actually experiencing net emigration at present. Ireland should be WELCOMING it's citizens back with their spouses and their kids who will significantly increase CONSUMER DEMAND and boost the economy.

clairefontaine

infosys wrote: »

3 years post marriage but must be resident in Ireland.

Wow.

That is really cruel to all those Irish emmigrants who are having kids abroad.

Unbelievable when you take in the whole picture of their policy.

Pro Hoc Vice

clairefontaine wrote: »

Wow.

That is really cruel to all those Irish emmigrants who are having kids abroad.

Unbelievable when you take in the whole picture of their policy.

The citizenship issue has been there for years.

maninasia

Until about 10-15 years ago a spouse of an Irish citizen could get an Irish passport without setting foot in the country. There were no real restrictions on movement. That of course was too easy and open to abuse (although the numbers abusing this were still small). Then it was a requirement to reside in Ireland for a few years as now.

But now they keep putting up barrier after barrier against Irish citizen/non-EEA marriages and I can't see the rationale for it. There aren't even that many compared to local marriages or Irish citizen/EEA marriages so what's the point?!?

Why and is this against the spirit of 'the family' as so enshrined in the Irish constitution? What about Irish kids rights to be with their parents in their home country, at least one of which is a native born Irish citizen? You can't say they have a right to live in Ireland and then not allow their mother or father to live there!



So many Irish have left overseas, given up their claims on social welfare and they are being punished for leaving and trying to better themselves and seeing the world.

MadsL

maninasia wrote: »

Until about 10-15 years ago a spouse of an Irish citizen could get an Irish passport without setting foot in the country.

I just had a conversation a few days ago with a friend's mother. She speaks not particularly great English with Spanish being her mother tongue. The family is a typical New Mexican family, root Spanish (not Mexican) heritage and speak Spanish (old old Spanish dialect) at home.

The mother's grandmother was 100% Irish. She could get a passport without even setting foot on Irish soil and keep her US citizenship. The friend had a father with a Spanish passport, she would have to live for a year in Spain before applying and once 'Spanish' would have to renounce her US citizenship.

The rules seem a bit wacky to me.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

I just had a conversation a few days ago with a friend's mother. She speaks not particularly great English with Spanish being her mother tongue. The family is a typical New Mexican family, root Spanish (not Mexican) heritage and speak Spanish (old old Spanish dialect) at home.

The mother's grandmother was 100% Irish. She could get a passport without even setting foot on Irish soil and keep her US citizenship. The friend had a father with a Spanish passport, she would have to live for a year in Spain before applying and once 'Spanish' would have to renounce her US citizenship.

The rules seem a bit wacky to me.

Its obvious to me, whatever rights you have from the Irish government depend on residency, not on citizenship, so why not be liberal with it.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

Are non-working disabled people discriminated against by the guidelines? yes or No?
.

NO! As they are treated the same as anybody else not working and relying on the state for income. It doesn't matter if you are disabled or not you are treated the same. The very opposite of discrimination.
If you had a requirement where they had to earn more than able bodied people then it would be discrimination. As it is not a requirement and all is equal it is not discrimination

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

NO! As they are treated the same as anybody else not working and relying on the state for income. It doesn't matter if you are disabled or not you are treated the same. The very opposite of discrimination.
If you had a requirement where they had to earn more than able bodied people then it would be discrimination. As it is not a requirement and all is equal it is not discrimination

It is by nature discriminatory however, since 54,590 people in 2002 were in receipt on Disability Benefit, those people are presumably unable to change their circumstances to meet the financial requirements.

Again you are hung up on the language rather than the actual issue.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its obvious to me, whatever rights you have from the Irish government depend on residency, not on citizenship, so why not be liberal with it.

You mean welfare rights? Rather than citizenship rights?

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

You mean welfare rights? Rather than citizenship rights?

No. Citizenship rights. Take voting. That right is revoked if you are not a resident.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

It is by nature discriminatory however, since 54,590 people in 2002 were in receipt on Disability Benefit, those people are presumably unable to change their circumstances to meet the financial requirements.

Again you are hung up on the language rather than the actual issue.

No I am not. There is only language when you are saying something is discrimination. It by no definition is discrimination. This has been your claim which is simply not true to call it discrimination.

If due to a your disability you are unable to work the state assists you. The state does not for anybody else allow them to sponsor a non eu national into this country.

You can argue it has a disproportion effect on disabled people as a large section rely on state benefits but it remains that it is non-discriminatory. It is not my fault you can't use language to say this yet choose to use "discrimination" incorrectly. Repeatedly pointed out to you by a number of people.

It is also a rule about the other person coming into the country not about the local citizen. That person fails to qualify to come live here. They are the people who have the restrictions applied not the disabled person.

You have failed to put coherent argument together due to your failure to understand what you want to say and what has been said to you.

looking_around

Ray Palmer wrote: »

NO! As they are treated the same as anybody else not working and relying on the state for income. It doesn't matter if you are disabled or not you are treated the same. The very opposite of discrimination.
If you had a requirement where they had to earn more than able bodied people then it would be discrimination. As it is not a requirement and all is equal it is not discrimination

So it's ok to force someone who CAN'T work (as many on disability are on it, because they cannot.) ..It's ok for them to be poor all their lives because it would be "discriminatory" for them to receive more?

yeah...that makes sense :rolleyes:

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I am not. There is only language when you are saying something is discrimination. It by no definition is discrimination. This has been your claim which is simply not true to call it discrimination.

If due to a your disability you are unable to work the state assists you. The state does not for anybody else allow them to sponsor a non eu national into this country.

You can argue it has a disproportion effect on disabled people as a large section rely on state benefits but it remains that it is non-discriminatory. It is not my fault you can't use language to say this yet choose to use "discrimination" incorrectly. Repeatedly pointed out to you by a number of people.

It is also a rule about the other person coming into the country not about the local citizen. That person fails to qualify to come live here. They are the people who have the restrictions applied not the disabled person.

What proportion of registered disabled people are on disability benefits and not working compared to able-bodied who are not working and on benefits?

If you show me more abled bodied are on benefits I'll concede the point and we can stop this ridiculous sideshow. If you cannot, then perhaps you will concede that these guidelines affect the registered disabled to a proportionally greater degree than the able-bodied. Which is the point I have been making all along.

You have failed to put coherent argument together due to your failure to understand what you want to say and what has been said to you.

If you simply listen to what you think I am saying rather than what I am actually saying then I can see how you form that conclusion.

qdawg86

Boskowski wrote: »

Right. Someone highly skilled comes to Ireland to meet, marry & support someone who hasn't been able to support themselves for years.
Rather the exception than the rule as a genuine case I dare say.

My god, it is amazing how unimaginative so many people are here.

How about a person who has returned to college to study for a degree, whose partner is a skilled Non EU citizen.

How can they reach the income threshold ?

Not every scenario being outlined necessarily equates to 'Uneducated sloth falls for beauty queen surgeon'.

Ray Palmer

looking_around wrote: »

So it's ok to force someone who CAN'T work (as many on disability are on it, because they cannot.) ..It's ok for them to be poor all their lives because it would be "discriminatory" for them to receive more?

yeah...that makes sense :rolleyes:

You do realise that makes no sense and isn't what I said. No "force" involved. You can't afford to sponsor somebody if you rely on welfare.

I don't think it is ok for disabled people to be poor. I know disabled people who are very well off. I know non-eu citizen who have education and valid skills for this country. How somebody with very poor education and earning potential from a country outside the eu meets a disable person who has to stay in this country due to their disability and also unable to work meet is going to be rare. That is the argument being made to say how unfair this is. I don't buy it. Not saying it can't happen just incredibly rare

MadsL wrote: »

What proportion of registered disabled people are on disability benefits and not working compared to able-bodied who are not working and on benefits?

If you show me more abled bodied are on benefits I'll concede the point and we can stop this ridiculous sideshow. If you cannot, then perhaps you will concede that these guidelines affect the registered disabled to a proportionally greater degree than the able-bodied. Which is the point I have been making all along.

It simply does not matter. The same rule applies to all. You can't afford it you can't have it. You have already said several times it doesn't matter the quantities when I pointed out how very few people it effects. So why would you change how you look at it now? Your arguments don't match up as result. Either quantity matters or it doesn't. I think it does matter and believe the quantities are incredibly small that it is a non issue straight away. After that the same rule applies to all hence not discrimination.

MadsL wrote: »

If you simply listen to what you think I am saying rather than what I am actually saying then I can see how you form that conclusion.

You said it was discrimination and it isn't. I didn't think that up. So it is either I ignore your actual words of somehow pick up what you mean.

As far as I can tell you are calling it discrimination because it has the potential effect on disabled people proportionally larger than the able bodied population. Is there something I missing? Am I wrong?

keithclancy

qdawg86 wrote: »

My god, it is amazing how unimaginative so many people are here.

How about a person who has returned to college to study for a degree, whose partner is a skilled Non EU citizen.

How can they reach the income threshold ?

Not every scenario being outlined necessarily equates to 'Uneducated sloth falls for beauty queen surgeon'.

Skilled non EU could just apply for a work permit like everyone else no ?

http://www.djei.ie/labour/workpermits/highlyskilledoccupationslist.htm

Ray Palmer

keithclancy wrote: »

Skilled non EU could just apply for a work permit like everyone else no ?

http://www.djei.ie/labour/workpermits/highlyskilledoccupationslist.htm

The argument seems to be if they are unskilled and the disabled Irish person must rely on state benefits they therefore are stuck. I think it a fuss about nothing but some convinced this is a massive issue for disabled people.

Some people want a special allowance for disabled people like they have in the UK.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You do realise that makes no sense and isn't what I said. No "force" involved. You can't afford to sponsor somebody if you rely on welfare.

I don't think it is ok for disabled people to be poor. I know disabled people who are very well off. I know non-eu citizen who have education and valid skills for this country. How somebody with very poor education and earning potential from a country outside the eu meets a disable person who has to stay in this country due to their disability and also unable to work meet is going to be rare. That is the argument being made to say how unfair this is. I don't buy it. Not saying it can't happen just incredibly rare

Sorry but this is just nonsense, there are plenty of circumstances up to and including where the non-EEA spouse would able to earn up to €59,999k a year where they could be refused entry. Go visit immigration boards to see real world examples of denials of Irish citizen's spouses for varied reasons.

It simply does not matter. The same rule applies to all. You can't afford it you can't have it. You have already said several times it doesn't matter the quantities when I pointed out how very few people it effects. So why would you change how you look at it now? Your arguments don't match up as result. Either quantity matters or it doesn't. I think it does matter and believe the quantities are incredibly small that it is a non issue straight away. After that the same rule applies to all hence not discrimination.

The same circumstances do not apply equally is the point I am making. The case of someone unable to work is different from someone being unwilling to work for instance. In my view this legislation breaches Article 23 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage,

You said it was discrimination and it isn't. I didn't think that up. So it is either I ignore your actual words of somehow pick up what you mean.

As far as I can tell you are calling it discrimination because it has the potential effect on disabled people proportionally larger than the able bodied population. Is there something I missing? Am I wrong?

Discrimination, equality and proportionality are closely linked. If a measure is
disproportionate in that it does not achieve its stated aim because others in an
“analogous situation” are treated differently, it will be discriminatory. In this case some able-bodied people are able to change their circumstances to meet the new requirements, whereas other are physically limited in their ability to do so. This is de facto discrimination. To be clear if the law says "you must be white to marry a non-EEA spouse", I cannot change from black and be treated equally. This law is saying "you must be working to to marry a non-EEA spouse" then if I am unable to work due physical limitations then I cannot change my circumstances. Therefore the law is discriminatory.

Clear now?

keithclancy

MadsL wrote: »

Discrimination, equality and proportionality are closely linked. If a measure is
disproportionate in that it does not achieve its stated aim because others in an
“analogous situation” are treated differently, it will be discriminatory. In this case some able-bodied people are able to change their circumstances to meet the new requirements, whereas other are physically limited in their ability to do so. This is de facto discrimination. To be clear if the law says "you must be white to marry a non-EEA spouse", I cannot change from black and be treated equally. This law is saying "you must be working to to marry a non-EEA spouse" then if I am unable to work due physical limitations then I cannot change my circumstances. Therefore the law is discriminatory.

Clear now?

But there are many people with severe disabilities with the ability to earn income.

To treat them differently to able bodied people would be discriminatory.

So do you want a different classifications of disabled people ?

MadsL

keithclancy wrote: »

But there are many people with severe disabilities with the ability to earn income.

To treat them differently to able bodied people would be discriminatory.

So do you want a different classifications of disabled people ?

There are ALREADY different classifications of disabled people, those in full-time receipt of benefits, those in receipt of partial benefits and those not in receipt of benefits. This legislation These guidelines affect 2/3.

Pro Hoc Vice

MadsL wrote: »

There are ALREADY different classifications of disabled people, those in full-time receipt of benefits, those in receipt of partial benefits and those not in receipt of benefits. This legislation affects 2/3.

It is not legislation it is guidelines issued by INIS that as yet have not led to any decisions that have been challenged.

MadsL

infosys wrote: »

It is not legislation it is guidelines issued by INIS that as yet have not led to any decisions that have been challenged.

Apologies, fell into my own bear trap.

maninasia

Correct, they are guidelines, and then you ask them to explain and they say 'they don't need to explain' and 'non citizens do not have the automatic right to reside in Ireland'.

You can't win, especially with the non transparency of the whole process.

MadsL

maninasia wrote: »

Correct, they are guidelines, and then you ask them to explain and they say 'they don't need to explain' and 'non citizens do not have the automatic right to reside in Ireland'.

You can't win, especially with the non transparency of the whole process.

Hey, I remember a time when having been refused extension of permission to remain, even though she had a letter of offer for a job in her hand, my fiancée (at the time now wife) was told "go marry this one". We asked about the formal appeals process and were told "There is none. Write to the Minister."

osarusan

GNIB replied to me. Here is the body of their response.

Dear Mr (Osaru)

Family Reunification usually refers to the family of a person who has been granted asylum in the state.

As the spouse of an Irish Citizen your wife can travel to the state with you and then register with the GNIB to obtain permission to reside in the state.

Yours sincerely,

Sent on behalf of
Detective Chief Superintendent,
Garda National Immigration Bureau

MadsL

Asylum?

Christ on a bike, they don't even know their own guidelines.

http://www.thejournal.ie/family-reunification-policy-guidelines-1245563-Jan2014/

No mention of asylum in the Minister's statements NOR IN THE DOCUMENT.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Family%20Reunification%20Policy%20Document.pdf/Files/Family%20Reunification%20Policy%20Document.pdf

That is a shocking response.

MadsL

In fact...

In cases involving persons who have been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection the reunification of immediate family members is already dealt with under the 1996 Refugee Act. However the Minister has discretion to grant immigration status to other dependent family members of a refugee. There are already procedures in place for assessing applications in respect of dependants of refugees and persons granted subsidiary protection. This includes a detailed questionnaire issued and assessed by the Office of the Refugee Application Commissioner. These will continue to apply.

B.A._Baracus

If I, as an Irish man, wants to marry say ... an nigerian woman. Then so be it. We're not talking about scams. Talking about my choice. My love. My life. Who in this fucking country has the right to say that I can't legally bring such a wife over here.


I shall be the black horse in this thread. The EU and Ireland allows so many scumbags over here. Who want and do nothing more than tap the nation or commit crimes. Yet ... how dare your citizen fall in love and marry someone NOT apart of the EU. No.... can't have that.

But yet with this topic certain Irish people gladly bend over, lube their assholes and spread for a big one. Why you may ask? ... because it does effect them. They have no interest to marry an non-irish person or non-eu. As long as it don't effect me jack, huh?


Telling you.... I am becoming a prick more and more each day. Not because I choose to be ... because of this fucking world.