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

MadsL

Dord wrote: »

Bit of a predicament. I haven't been in that situation but from what I recall one of the documents the marriage registration people can ask for is proof of freedom to marry.

Here's the Irish version;

https://www.dfa.ie/travel/our-services/marriage-and-civil-partnership-abroad/how-to-apply-for-certificate-of-freedom-to-marry/

Her home countries foreign affairs dept should have had a similar document available.

The Irish state does not recognise 1 year separation divorce arrangements, hence the investigation.

We 'hopped the fence' to NI and married there with less fuss.

Uriel.

seb65 wrote: »

What difference does that make?

Still waiting on those tough conditions...

Because if you meet other conditions set out by policy or legislation then you will have a right of residence. If you don't, you don't. Sovereignty in practice.

Dord

MadsL wrote: »

The Irish state does not recognise 1 year separation divorce arrangements, hence the investigation.

We 'hopped the fence' to NI and married there with less fuss.

Strange.

Oh well, you do what you have to! Glad to hear you found a way.

Uriel.

Dord wrote: »

There's a distinction made in the guidelines and current practice.

How do you mean?

Fr_Dougal

MadsL wrote: »

And hence my objection...

Let's say a billionaire wants to move to Ireland and marry a disabled man who is not working.

Refused.

Huh?

Is your argument so weak that you have to use the 'disabled' to strengthen it?

You mention disabled in the thread title too, as if 'disabled' people don't work.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned 'cancer victims' yet in order to create an argument that most people would shy away from disagreeing with. It's been a while since I've seen such manipulative, lazy posting.

MadsL

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Is your argument so weak that you have to use the 'disabled' to strengthen it?

You mention disabled in the thread title too, as if 'disabled' people don't work.

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned 'cancer victims' yet in order to create an argument that most people would shy away from disagreeing with. It's been a while since I've seen such manipulative, lazy posting.

Manipulative? I'm arguing for disabled rights here am I not?

Admittedly I made a rather ill thought-out comment about a group of people some of whom can work earlier and apologised.

Is your argument so weak you can only criticise mine on the basis that I included the disabled as one group who will be affected by these guidelines?

Actually those unable to work as they are receiving cancer treatment will also be affected by these changes, so you are indeed correct, the ill are also being discriminated against.

Dord

Uriel. wrote: »

How do you mean?

Irish sponsors and EEA (but non-Irish) sponsors are treated differently. Additional restrictions are imposed on Irish sponsors.

The document in the OP specifically refers to guidelines for Irish and non-EEA sponsors but does not address the cases of EEA sponsors in Ireland. The process is mostly a rubber stamp affair from what I understand.

seb65

Uriel. wrote: »

Because if you meet other conditions set out by policy or legislation then you will have a right of residence. If you don't, you don't. Sovereignty in practice.

I have already met the spousal requirements. I am here. As a spouse. No issues.

However, it seems you want to restrict my rights as a spouse with these as yet unmentioned tough conditions you first spoke about.

holystungun9

MadsL wrote: »

And if I am unable to work as I have a mental illness or I am blind say?

What if this, what if that, imagine if you... There is merit to debating things but were you really that put out about this tonight that you wanted to examine and have everybody step into those shoes and solve or resolve something. And in After Hours??? Isn't there a debating forum or some other site where you can interact and look at all the ins and outs of the issue and hypothesise ad infinitum?

MadsL

seb65 wrote: »

unmentioned tough conditions you first spoke about.

I too would like them mentioned.

What are they?

Frank Lee Midere

MadsL wrote: »

If I am disabled, and someone wants to marry me and support me by working, first they have be able to legally work.

Being on benefits should not limit the pool of people I can marry in my view.

As for the US, the requirement is a mere 125% of the poverty level. The poverty level in Ireland is €10,831 per adult per annum, so this equates I suppose. However Ireland has nothing like the immigration pressure of the US.

As far as I know Ireland has more immigrants than the US and far more legal immigrants - and a far greater pool of potential legal immigrants relative to its population.

MadsL

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

As far as I know Ireland has more immigrants than the US.

Go have a long think about that statement. You may wish to reword it.

cstby

This whole thread has me confused.

I'm an American citizen currently living in Ireland on a stamp 4 as the spouse of an Irish citizen. My current registration expires in November. I don't understand what these new guidelines mean for us when I go to renew in October/November. Is this something worth looking into now, or will the process be the same as it was when I first registered?

Boskowski

MadsL wrote: »

How about if the new immigrant is highly skilled and can work and take this person off benefits?

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.

Dord

cstby wrote: »

This whole thread has me confused.

I'm an American citizen currently living in Ireland on a stamp 4 as the spouse of an Irish citizen. My current registration expires in November. I don't understand what these new guidelines mean for us when I go to renew in October/November. Is this something worth looking into now, or will the process be the same as it was when I first registered?

From what I understand, unless you have any change in circumstances you'd just renew as normal.

MadsL

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.

Even it is the exception, it will still be refused.

You don't choose who you fall in love with.

Boskowski

MadsL wrote: »

Even it is the exception, it will still be refused.

You don't choose who you fall in love with.

But you can't legislate for the exception. The reverse case is trade citizenship for support. Not exactly unheard of.

I understand you can't decide who you fall in love with. But from a state's point of view you don't want someone on long time benefits bringing more benefit recipients into the country do you?

systemicrisk

I am 100% with MadsL on this one. Irish citizens should not be discriminated against because of their financial situation. I need to start paying more attention to what laws and regulations are being brought in as it seems unbelievable that the government can just bring something like this into effect with little public discourse.

It amazes me how prejudiced many people on here are against people who are unemployed. I normally would not wish it on anyone but I would like some of the people on here to experience it for a while and see how it feels. I am not and never have been unemployed.

MadsL

Boskowski wrote: »

But you can't legislate for the exception.

What was wrong with the situation before this guideline where no account was taken of financial support?

The reverse case is trade citizenship for support. Not exactly unheard of.

There are endless ways to determine a genuine relationship.

I understand you can't decide who you fall in love with. But from a state's point of view you don't want someone on long time benefits bringing more benefit recipients into the country do you?

As I have said they do not have to have a right to benefits until they earn those rights through working.

old_aussie

MadsL wrote: »

If I am disabled, and someone wants to marry me and support me by working, first they have be able to legally work.

Being on benefits should not limit the pool of people I can marry in my view.

Marry them and live in their country is an option.

seb65

Boskowski wrote: »

But you can't legislate for the exception. The reverse case is trade citizenship for support. Not exactly unheard of.

I understand you can't decide who you fall in love with. But from a state's point of view you don't want someone on long time benefits bringing more benefit recipients into the country do you?

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.

systemicrisk

old_aussie wrote: »

Marry them and live in their country is an option.

So thats the option. Off you go now, we don't want you here. At least we found some foreigner to take care of you.

What type of country do we want to be?

Boskowski

Nothing to do with discrimination of the unemployed.

Its the same with that discussion on how many children people with no means 'should have'. The answer in my book is 'its their own business' and of course there is the premise that the children must not suffer from their parents irresponsibilities. But morally its highly scumsy that people feel entitled to do whatever they want on the premise the taxpayer will sort them out.

My view is that whatever you do, marry, have children, make a home somewhere - you should have first and foremost the means to do so yourself.

The question at hand is a bit in a similar category. It relieves people from personal responsibility and also opens the door for abuse.

What happened to we fell in love and moved heaven and hell to scratch out a living for ourselves. Too many easy handouts, we need less not more of that.

Boskowski

MadsL wrote: »

As I have said they do not have to have a right to benefits until they earn those rights through working.

Exactly. So off what are they going to live then?

Come on now. No country will take you if you have no means and no clear prospect.

Boskowski

systemicrisk wrote: »

So thats the option. Off you go now, we don't want you here. At least we found some foreigner to take care of you.

What type of country do we want to be?

A country where the benefits budget isn't two thirds of the tax take?

Uriel.

MadsL wrote: »

I too would like them mentioned.

What are they?

Tough conditions for residency?

Oh a few, but I don't have an exhaustive list.

Circumstances surrounding criminal record
Purpose of residency (education or a sponsored qualifying job)
Ability to support oneself
Strict time limits of residence depending on purpose
Disqualification conditions

Plenty of others I'm sure if I sat down to right a policy paper on the matter.

The bottom line is depending on the circumstances, the Irish priority must be on housing, jobs, school and college places etc for the Irish. Of course I do by favour a prohibition on immigrants, far from it, but I do believe we must take as many steps as possible to protect the state from issues such as welfare migration, fraudulent marriage etc

spank_inferno

About 3/4 of workers earn less than 40k.

This is pathetic.

MadsL

Boskowski wrote: »

Exactly. So off what are they going to live then?

That is their choice, as a US green card holder no-one will be paying me welfare payments. Something I knew when I moved to the US.

Come on now. No country will take you if you have no means and no clear prospect.

Eh? I am married to someone with dual citizenship, plus my own. There are at least 29 countries we can legally reside and work in.

jimboblep

Boskowski wrote: »

Nothing to do with discrimination of the unemployed.

Its the same with that discussion on how many children people with no means 'should have'. The answer in my book is 'its their own business' and of course there is the premise that the children must not suffer from their parents irresponsibilities. But morally its highly scumsy that people feel entitled to do whatever they want on the premise the taxpayer will sort them out.

My view is that whatever you do, marry, have children, make a home somewhere - you should have first and foremost the means to do so yourself.

The question at hand is a bit in a similar category. It relieves people from personal responsibility and also opens the for to abuse.

What happened to we fell in love and moved heaven and hell to scratch out a living for ourselves. Too many easy handouts, we need less not more of that.

couldnt agree more with this, if you truly want your family with you this should be an incentive to work
its not making it illegal for people to come here just spurs them on to support themselves something that should be done in all areas of welfare

Boskowski

MadsL wrote: »

Eh? I am married to someone with dual citizenship, plus my own. There are at least 29 countries we can legally reside and work in.

But the discussion is about someone with no means and a spouse with no citizenship. Doesn't sound like that applies to you?