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

AngryHippie

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I shall be the black horse in this thread.

Neigh !

You shall look on the bright side !

If IRL keeps going the way it is, You'd be better off in Nigeria with your Nigerian Wife/Husband/Concubine/Soulmate/Life Partner (Delete as appropriate)

Don't let it get you down. and keep fighting them.

the world is full of pr1cks. Don't become one of them:D

keithclancy

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

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.

What about another nigerian man ?

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

Apologies, fell into my own bear trap.

Here is precisely your problem. You are trying to trap me and outwit me with your opinion of this regulation. The fundamental problem is I agree with it and you don't.

You are making contra arguments to yourself in attempts to outwit me and you are failing.

I understand your argument and I dismiss it. IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. It has a POTENTIAL to disproportionally effect disabled people who meet somebody from outside the EU and want to marry them IF the don't have the REQUIRED income or education.

You can claim all you like this is similar to discrimination by the amount it potentially effects, even though you mentioned quantities don't matter, but it is not classed as discrimination by law or English.

A limit has been set some will fall below it by 1 cent it doesn't matter that is the limit it has to exist at some point and there will always be those who are just below. That is how limits work.

Your argument has not changed my opinion and as you objective is to win an argument you have failed. I understood you fine you just aren't consistently staying to your own points.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Here is precisely your problem. You are trying to trap me and outwit me with your opinion of this regulation. The fundamental problem is I agree with it and you don't.

Oh dear, such nonsense.

You are making contra arguments to yourself in attempts to outwit me and you are failing.

What "contra arguments'?

I understand your argument and I dismiss it. IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. It has a POTENTIAL to disproportionally effect disabled people who meet somebody from outside the EU and want to marry them IF the don't have the REQUIRED income or education.

If something disproportionally effects someone, then that is the definition of discrimination. You finally understand. Finally.

You can claim all you like this is similar to discrimination by the amount it potentially effects, even though you mentioned quantities don't matter, but it is not classed as discrimination by law or English.

Talking of English, the UK has put in place an exemption for people in receipt of disability benefit. You haven't adequately explained why they have done this, I claim it is to avoid discriminating against the disabled, what is your understandings as to the reason for it?

A limit has been set some will fall below it by 1 cent it doesn't matter that is the limit it has to exist at some point and there will always be those who are just below. That is how limits work.

Well, yes. That is not my argument at all.

Your argument has not changed my opinion and as you objective is to win an argument you have failed. I understood you fine you just aren't consistently staying to your own points.

If you would like to point me to the inconsistencies I'll address them. Otherwise you are just pointing at air.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

What "contra arguments'?
.

You have claimed it doesn't matter how many it effects and at the same time are pointing out it disproportionally effecting people. They contra each other

MadsL wrote: »

If something disproportionally effects someone, then that is the definition of discrimination. You finally understand. Finally..

Not it isn't, and it isn't "someone" it is a group. Things in high place disproportionally effect short people it doesn't make it discrimination. I have said several times that is your belief. I have no problem understanding what you are saying you are just wrong. You have a warped view of what discrimination is. You are unable to use the word correctly so I would suggest you stop.

MadsL wrote: »

Well, yes. That is not my argument at all..

It was an argument you made see. I didn't bring it up you did.

MadsL wrote: »

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...

MadsL wrote: »

If you would like to point me to the inconsistencies I'll address them. Otherwise you are just pointing at air.

There you go two inconsistencies and lack of knowledge on what discrimination is.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You have claimed it doesn't matter how many it effects and at the same time are pointing out it disproportionally effecting people. They contra each other

Errm. They don't. I don't really know how to explain that to someone when you are using 'contra' as a verb. I'm not being a grammar nazi but I cannot define something in a way that doesn't actually exist in the English language.

If I am affected by something and I am in a small, tiny minority, the impact on me can still be discriminatory. If I have a sign saying "we do not hire black albino lesbian disabled sadomasochists" that is still discriminatory even if the target group size is one person.

Not it isn't, and it isn't "someone" it is a group. Things in high place disproportionally effect short people it doesn't make it discrimination.

It would if guidelines said that you had to sign for your dole at a counter ledge placed at five feet off the ground and no steps or other aids were to be used now wouldn't it?

I have said several times that is your belief. I have no problem understanding what you are saying you are just wrong. You have a warped view of what discrimination is. You are unable to use the word correctly so I would suggest you stop.

*sigh* I don't even know where to begin with this. I am wrong because you say so? Brilliant argument.

It was an argument you made see. I didn't bring it up you did.

Talking of arguments I brought up, still no answer to why the UK made an exemption in their financial guidelines for those in receipt of disability allowance. As I have asked you at least twice, why would they do that?

There you go two inconsistencies and lack of knowledge on what discrimination is.

Define your accepted definition of discrimination for me, lets try and spell it out again for you.

keithclancy

MadsL wrote: »

Define your accepted definition of discrimination for me, lets try and spell it out again for you.

For me it would be discrimination if they specified that Disabled people cannot do something.

Saying its discrimination against the disabled because they are a group that may or may not earn income doesn't make sense to me.

For example I wouldn't say a job description for a Fireman discriminates against the disabled because it would mention "must be able bodied"

Or if I go for a Job and it says "Must speak Dutch at a fluent level" that doesn't mean it discriminates against foreigners, just people that don't speak Dutch.

MadsL

keithclancy wrote: »

Saying its discrimination against the disabled because they are a group that may or may not earn income doesn't make sense to me.

It is discriminatory because those in receipt of disability allowance usually CANNOT change their circumstances so they will never be able to meet these guidelines.

If you set a goal that people cannot reach then you are in fact discriminating against them whilst arguing that 'oh it's the same for everyone'. Police forces for example have had to adapt their physical requirements to make sure they do not discriminate on age grounds.

keithclancy

MadsL wrote: »

It is discriminatory because those in receipt of disability allowance usually CANNOT change their circumstances so they will never be able to meet these guidelines.

If you set a goal that people cannot reach then you are in fact discriminating against them whilst arguing that 'oh it's the same for everyone'. Police forces for example have had to adapt their physical requirements to make sure they do not discriminate on age grounds.

So basically all jobs that require something a disabled person cannot achieve are discriminatory.

E.G.
Fireman
Pilot
Bouncer
Police Man
Army Infantry
Security Guard
Air Steward
Lifeguard

The requirement in this case is that they can support the person financially .... which they may or may not be able to do.

E.G. I do know of disabled people that would fulfill this requirement in a financial sense.

I also know of disabled people that would not because they are profoundly disabled (Cerebral Palsy, Spina bifida, Downs Syndrome or a general brain injury) and this affects their ability to earn any income.

While I take your point its unfortunate that they cannot do so, I do think its a bit of a stretch to say it is discrimination, since it would only apply to some disabled people and not to others.

MadsL

keithclancy wrote: »

So basically all jobs that require something a disabled person cannot achieve are discriminatory.

E.G.
Fireman
Pilot
Bouncer
Police Man
Army Infantry
Security Guard
Air Steward
Lifeguard

No they are not because there is a specific physical requirement, otherwise blind people could sue as they are not allowed to be bus drivers.

That is different to not hiring someone in a wheelchair to be a systems admin as there is no physical aspect to that role.

However, you will find that in certain cases such professions have staggered physical requirements according to the age of the applicant. In the US I have seen cops into their 70s who cannot be forced to retire, they would never pass a physical designed for a 20 year old.

The requirement in this case is that they can support the person financially .... which they may or may not be able to do.

E.G. I do know of disabled people that would fulfill this requirement in a financial sense.

I also know of disabled people that would not because they are profoundly disabled (Cerebral Palsy, Spina bifida, Downs Syndrome or a general brain injury) and this affects their ability to earn any income.

And that is my point, they cannot be expected to achieve the same standard of income as they do not have the ability to do so. That is the discriminatory portion of the guidelines right there.

While I take your point its unfortunate that they cannot do so, I do think its a bit of a stretch to say it is discrimination, since it would only apply to some disabled people and not to others.

If I said it was discriminatory to people with Cerebral Palsy, Spina bifida, and Downs Syndrome would you accept that?

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

Errm. They don't. I don't really know how to explain that to someone when you are using 'contra' as a verb. I'm not being a grammar nazi but I cannot define something in a way that doesn't actually exist in the English language.

Mainly because I used it as a noun not a verb. I have answered all you questions. Others explained it to you too. Go back and look. I have pointed out many of your points are irrelevant such as what the UK do.

Discrimination would have to be the exclusion of somebody based on religion,
sexuality etc... Disable people are not being discriminated because they are disable. It just happens that a rule for everybody effects people who rely on social welfare as their income. They are not discriminated because they are disabled some disabled people simply unable to afford to do it. They still retain all their rights and none have been removed hence it is not discrimination. You conveniently ignore the other party can improve their opportunities

The police force have not reduced physical requirements for roles due to age. They have actually increased the requirements in the UK for example seeing as you like to point out their legislation.

You might as well say it is discrimination against people in Coolock because it disproportionally effect them due to the low levels of income.

Again you ignored questions you have been asked.

So in conclusion you still don't know what discrimination is and you failed to address the two inconsistent arguments you have made by talking around them and talking about language.

I tell you what you get a definition of discrimination and show how your argument matches. So far you have not described discrimination once now you have a clear parameter to illustrate how right you are.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Mainly because I used it as a noun not a verb.

"A member of a counterrevolutionary guerrilla group in Nicaragua."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contra

I have answered all you questions. Others explained it to you too. Go back and look. I have pointed out many of your points are irrelevant such as what the UK do.

Why is it irrelevant, it is an example of country with very similar laws? Why, for the third time, do you think they excluded those on disability allowance from the legislation? It's a reasonable question in this debate, why are you refusing to answer it?

Discrimination would have to be the exclusion of somebody based on religion,
sexuality etc... Disable people are not being discriminated because they are disable. It just happens that a rule for everybody effects people who rely on social welfare as their income. They are not discriminated because they are disabled some disabled people simply unable to afford to do it. They still retain all their rights and none have been removed hence it is not discrimination. You conveniently ignore the other party can improve their opportunities

There are nine grounds for discrimination. Disability is one of them.

As we have covered some classes of disability mean people cannot earn an income. These guidelines discriminate against those people based on their disability. That is discrimination.

The police force have not reduced physical requirements for roles due to age. They have actually increased the requirements in the UK for example seeing as you like to point out their legislation.

I find that hard to believe, source? Here are AGS's requirements with the age groups clearly shown.
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=12379&Lang=1

You might as well say it is discrimination against people in Coolock because it disproportionally effect them due to the low levels of income.

Again you ignored questions you have been asked.

Priceless. Answer my question on the UK please, for the 4th time of asking.

So in conclusion you still don't know what discrimination is and you failed to address the two inconsistent arguments you have made by talking around them and talking about language.

Says the guy taking about Contras who cannot name the nine grounds even with access to google.

I tell you what you get a definition of discrimination and show how your argument matches. So far you have not described discrimination once now you have a clear parameter to illustrate how right you are.

I asked you provide a definition, you failed.

Let's try this.

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to be discriminated against if he or she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the 9 grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must be made, for example, in the case of disability discrimination the comparison must be between a person who has a disability and another who has not, or between persons with different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

The second paragraph is exactly what I am talking about.

osarusan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Mainly because I used it as a noun not a verb.

no you didn't. It came directly between a subject and an object. It can only be a verb in this case.

keithclancy

MadsL wrote: »

Let's try this.

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to be discriminated against if he or she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the 9 grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must be made, for example, in the case of disability discrimination the comparison must be between a person who has a disability and another who has not, or between persons with different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

The second paragraph is exactly what I am talking about.

That pertains to equality in the workplace and it doesn't really apply to what you are talking about.

The possibility not to earn income is just that ... its the possibility not to earn income.

If you went into the Bank and they would not give you a 60k loan because you didn't have income, I don't think "I am Disabled" would really cut it.

This is a situation where one has to support the other and if you have no income you cannot do that. A Disability allowance is not there to support one disabled person and a second able bodied person.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

There are nine grounds for discrimination. Disability is one of them.

As we have covered some classes of disability mean people cannot earn an income. These guidelines discriminate against those people based on their disability. That is discrimination.


I asked you provide a definition, you failed.

Let's try this.

What is discrimination?
Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to be discriminated against if he or she is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the 9 grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must be made, for example, in the case of disability discrimination the comparison must be between a person who has a disability and another who has not, or between persons with different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

The second paragraph is exactly what I am talking about.

Lets be clear I refused to provide a definition. I have answered your question about the UK you just don't like the answer, you won't get another.

As for the blindly ridiculous argument that agreement that certain disabled people have to rely on the state benefits being added to the grounds for discrimination proves your point it is so unbelievable stupid. You can't add the two and claim a logical argument. You have to discriminate on the 9 grounds not an offshoot of the implications of being in these groups.

Why aren't you arguing being in the traveller community means you also don't have these means and therefore being discriminated against. They can't access great paying jobs due to their education and financial terms and can't do so for being in that community.

As for your bold part, what a failure to understand. That refers to giving somebody a benefit that doesn't appear to be discriminatory but is due to it not being accessible to everybody. So that is things like allowing workers have part-time, alter working hours etc... work because they have children and not allowing people who don't have children do similar. That is indirect discrimination.

Not having enough money is not indirect discrimination because some disabled people rely on welfare and therefore don't have enough money.

You link is also to do with equality in WORK. Giving your partner Irish Citizenship is not work nor a right it is a privilege you must qualify for. There is nothing in the rules that disqualifies you based on disability. If there was such a rule it would be discrimination.

BTW I qualify to be on disability but I can work so I do.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Lets be clear I refused to provide a definition.

So you refused to provide a common ground we can agree on. Great.

I have answered your question about the UK you just don't like the answer, you won't get another.

You dodged the question because you cannot admit that the UK exclude those on disability allowances in order not to discriminate. Just admit it.

As for the blindly ridiculous argument that agreement that certain disabled people have to rely on the state benefits being added to the grounds for discrimination proves your point it is so unbelievable stupid. You can't add the two and claim a logical argument. You have to discriminate on the 9 grounds not an offshoot of the implications of being in these groups.

Did you even read the definition of indirect discrimination? That is exactly what it is.

Why aren't you arguing being in the traveller community means you also don't have these means and therefore being discriminated against. They can't access great paying jobs due to their education and financial terms and can't do so for being in that community.

Some of them cannot, but tell me, can they change those circumstances? And if the legislation demanded that you live in a house, and not a halting site, would that legislation be discriminatory in intent against travellers? That's a question there, just so you know. I'd appreciate an answer.

As for your bold part, what a failure to understand. That refers to giving somebody a benefit that doesn't appear to be discriminatory but is due to it not being accessible to everybody. So that is things like allowing workers have part-time, alter working hours etc... work because they have children and not allowing people who don't have children do similar. That is indirect discrimination.

I'm sorry, but you are failing to understand 'indirect discrimination'.

For example, a translation company insists that all those applying for jobs as translators have driving licenses because there is an occasional need to deliver or collect work from clients. Since this prevents some people with disabilities from applying and as driving is not a core requirement for doing the job, the company is effectively discriminating against this particular group of people, unless it can demonstrate that there is an objective reason to justify this measure.

This is an often quoted example from legal training courses originating from an EU case law website i cannot find the original as the server is down. Your argument is that this is not discrimination because some disabled people do drive. How do i know this is your argument because you say...

Not having enough money is not indirect discrimination because some disabled people rely on welfare and therefore don't have enough money.

However since disabled people are proportionately more likely to be on SW this measure affects them disproportionately more than the able-bodies and therefore is indirect discrimination.

I don't know how to spell it out more clearly to you...

You link is also to do with equality in WORK. Giving your partner Irish Citizenship is not work nor a right it is a privilege you must qualify for. There is nothing in the rules that disqualifies you based on disability. If there was such a rule it would be discrimination.

Do you even read the links I post? Specifically here it states "discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services"

Since the provision of residency rights to you and your spouse falls under Government Services provision it is covered by the legislation. The definition of a service under the Equal Status Act 2000 is

‘‘service’’ means a service or facility of any nature which is available
to the public generally or a section of the public

keithclancy

MadsL wrote: »

Do you even read the links I post? Specifically here it states "discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services"

Since the provision of residency rights to you and your spouse falls under Government Services provision it is covered by the legislation. The definition of a service under the Equal Status Act 2000 is

Perhaps you should bring a court case against the state on the basis that financial rules for immigration are a service.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

You dodged the question because you cannot admit that the UK exclude those on disability allowances in order not to discriminate. Just admit it.

Prove that's the case . I gave you an answer you don't like it you will not get another.

Madsl I disagree with you and find your arguments tediously contrived and false. Bring it to court and prove me wrong I don't care to argue with somebody who can't keep their argument straight and tries to set traps to catch people out. You have refused repeatedly to explain your contradictory arguments. I assume it is because you can't. Nobody is fooled by your misdirection to avoid answering them.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Prove that's the case . I gave you an answer you don't like it you will not get another.

It is a very simple question, "why do you think the Uk made that exemption?" I contend that is was to avoid discrimination. Why is your reasoning. A very simple question, which you seem utterly stumped by.

Madsl I disagree with you and find your arguments tediously contrived and false.

You may disagree with me, however you have yet to prove anything false.

Bring it to court and prove me wrong

Once again you completely have no clue about equality legislation, it must be brought to court by the person discriminated against.

I don't care to argue with somebody who can't keep their argument straight and tries to set traps to catch people out.

You are a bit paranoid there about me using the expression "fell into my own bear trap" it described someone being clumsy. I was being clumsy with language in that case.

You have refused repeatedly to explain your contradictory arguments.

You are confusing your misunderstanding as to what is discrimination with my argument. I have corrected your misunderstanding above, and you seem to accept that, as you are not pointing out where I am wrong about the legislation.

I assume it is because you can't. Nobody is fooled by your misdirection to avoid answering them.

What supposed 'contradiction' remains unanswered? Do tell, facts are much more interesting than ad hominum rants like your latest post.

MadsL

keithclancy wrote: »

Perhaps you should bring a court case against the state on the basis that financial rules for immigration are a service.

And you should read the legislation and realise I cannot.

The complainant must be the person affected by the discriminatory act.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Equality_FAQ

clairefontaine

madsl,

Does this mean if you and your wife want to move to Ireland that you cannot unless you have secured employment in Ireland that meets the financial requirements?

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

madsl,

Does this mean if you and your wife want to move to Ireland that you cannot unless you have secured employment in Ireland that meets the financial requirements?

She is an Irish citizen, I am an EU citizen. We both have residency rights.

At the moment it seems vague if a non-visa exempt spouse could join their Irish spouse if they do not have €40k earned over three years (and that appears to be in Ireland)

Osarusan's reply is just wrong as far as I can tell. The GNIB superintendant appears to be confused (nothing new there)

Pro Hoc Vice

MadsL wrote: »

She is an Irish citizen, I am an EU citizen. We both have residency rights.

At the moment it seems vague if a non-visa exempt spouse could join their Irish spouse if they do not have €40k earned over three years (and that appears to be in Ireland)

Osarusan's reply is just wrong as far as I can tell. The GNIB superintendant appears to be confused (nothing new there)

No where does it say the earnings must be in Ireland.

"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."

It simple says the applicant can not have been or predominantly reliant on benefits from the Irish State for 2 years prior. It then goes on to say during the past 3 years the Irish citizen must have earned over 3 years at least €40k excluding any state benefits, so it excludes any state benefits. To require that income to be in ireland would in fact discriminate against Irish citizens who have lived abroad. While the State can discriminate it must be proportionate.

To say that it is discrimination against the disabled, well on that basis it's also discrimination against OAP's as a higher % of same are reliant on state payments.

Also you seem to ignore that these are guidelines and constitutional and natural justice must apply, as must the constitution and the Convention. I base my view on a number of years practice in immigration law, multiple Judicial Reviews, being involved in the JR that forced the Irish State to decide on Irish Citizen non EU spousal permissions in less than 12 months.

If these guidelines ignore the rights of citizens and most importantly the Old or disabled they will be challenged.

MadsL

infosys wrote: »

No where does it say the earnings must be in Ireland.

"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."

I agree it can be read that way, our GNIB friend has not clarified however.

It simple says the applicant can not have been or predominantly reliant on benefits from the Irish State for 2 years prior. It then goes on to say during the past 3 years the Irish citizen must have earned over 3 years at least €40k excluding any state benefits, so it excludes any state benefits. To require that income to be in ireland would in fact discriminate against Irish citizens who have lived abroad. While the State can discriminate it must be proportionate.

Good point, I feel there is a disproportionate impact on disabled people, since a higher proportion are in receipt of SW.

To say that it is discrimination against the disabled, well on that basis it's also discrimination against OAP's as a higher % of same are reliant on state payments.

Yes, it may well be found to be. Unless pensions are not classed as State benfits.

Also you seem to ignore that these are guidelines and constitutional and natural justice must apply, as must the constitution and the Convention. I base my view on a number of years practice in immigration law, multiple Judicial Reviews, being involved in the JR that forced the Irish State to decide on Irish Citizen non EU spousal permissions in less than 12 months.

If these guidelines ignore the rights of citizens and most importantly the Old or disabled they will be challenged.

Might I ask you to venture an opinion that if a disabled person in receipt of SW brought such a case, would they win?

Pro Hoc Vice

MadsL wrote: »

I agree it can be read that way, our GNIB friend has not clarified however.


Good point, I feel there is a disproportionate impact on disabled people, since a higher proportion are in receipt of SW.


Yes, it may well be found to be. Unless pensions are not classed as State benfits.



Might I ask you to venture an opinion that if a disabled person in receipt of SW brought such a case, would they win?

GNIB won't make these decisions it will be INIS, in other words the bosses of GNIB.

In relation to your last question, I can never say a person will win a case, but I would be willing to take a case on the hazard in such a situation as I would think it would be in most cases a unfair decision. I would guess that any citizen earning less than 40k or wholly reliant on SW would have in many cases an excellent challenge. But only time will tell, it's important to remember that the UK does not have a written constitution with the same view of the protection of rights that our SC has supported.

MadsL

infosys wrote: »

GNIB won't make these decisions it will be INIS, in other words the bosses of GNIB.

I appreciate that, however it seems that our communication from GNIB is somewhat laughable as they specifically say this will apply in asylum cases, when the guidelines actually exclude asylum cases.

As to GNIB making decisions, my wife and I have been on the receiving end of one deemed final by the clerk behind the counter at GNIB with no appeal system in place other than a letter to the minister (I know a formal appeals process is now in place) and they certainly at that time felt they were steering the ship.

In relation to your last question, I can never say a person will win a case, but I would be willing to take a case on the hazard in such a situation as I would think it would be in most cases a unfair decision. I would guess that any citizen earning less than 40k or wholly reliant on SW would have in many cases an excellent challenge. But only time will tell, it's important to remember that the UK does not have a written constitution with the same view of the protection of rights that our SC has supported.

Thank you for your opinion. I refer Ray Palmer to it for his consideration. Counsellor (if you will forgive the Americanism), you work in a worthy field of occupation.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

It is a very simple question, "why do you think the Uk made that exemption?" I contend that is was to avoid discrimination. Why is your reasoning. A very simple question, which you seem utterly stumped by.

Absolutely hysterical response. You don't know,you can't prove it yet you want it to be the reason and apply it here.
Anybody reading your line by line response knows you are completely unreasonable and can't make valid arguments.
You know exactly what you haven't responded to and I have no need to repeat them. You will just ignore and avoid responding yet again.

I don't agree with you on any of your points as they are contrived, inaccurate and false.

As I said I could be one of these people you say is discriminated against and I don't see it as discrimination.

osarusan

infosys wrote: »

Also you seem to ignore that these are guidelines and constitutional and natural justice must apply, as must the constitution and the Convention. I base my view on a number of years practice in immigration law, multiple Judicial Reviews, being involved in the JR that forced the Irish State to decide on Irish Citizen non EU spousal permissions in less than 12 months.

Based on this, what did you think of the reply I recieved from GNIB?

Which was:

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

Pro Hoc Vice

osarusan wrote: »

Based on this, what did you think of the reply I recieved from GNIB?

Which was:

The correct legal interpertation of the words "Family Reunification" is in fact as set out in the reply. http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/Family_Reunification_Information_Leaflet

These new Guidelines now use the same term but for a different thing. The correct immigration term would be a join spouse visa. As I also said GNIB are not the correct people to contact, INIS or if abroad the local embassy and or apply for the correct visa online. While GNIB can be helpfull they are rarely lawyers or section makers. I assume your spouse is non visa required if so then the GNIB are correct it's a matter of arriving and getting GNIB card and stamping passport with stamp 4. If there is any serious issue it will go to INIS but I doubt there will be any issue with a non visa required national.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Absolutely hysterical response. You don't know,you can't prove it yet you want it to be the reason and apply it here.

I'm simply asking you your opinion as to the reason for the exemption in the UK guidelines that is all. Not a difficult question.

Anybody reading your line by line response knows you are completely unreasonable and can't make valid arguments.

Your posts for some time now have simply contained ad hominum lists of my failings, do you consider this to be reasonable and a valid argument?

You know exactly what you haven't responded to and I have no need to repeat them. You will just ignore and avoid responding yet again.

So, whilst I give you the courtesy of repeating my question that you have failed to address above, I am supposed to guess what it is that dissatisfied you? Hardly seems fair does it?

I don't agree with you on any of your points as they are contrived, inaccurate and false.

All of them, or just the ones I am supposed to know which ones they are?

And yet our resident expert in immigration law says " I would be willing to take a case on the hazard in such a situation as I would think it would be in most cases a unfair decision". Strange that.

As I said I could be one of these people you say is discriminated against and I don't see it as discrimination.

Your perception of being discriminated against doesn't determine if it is in fact discrimination.