Citizenship ruling.

osarusan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If the Act does not permit the temporary leaving of the country and states that applicants must have 12 months of "continuous residence" then the law is at fault and the judge is merely highlighting it.

Not really.


This judge, and this judge alone, has interpreted the word 'continuous' to mean without any interruption whatsoever (even 1 day). Previously, it has always been interpreted differently.

It is absurd to conclude that a person who sleeps in their own bed 365 nights of the year, but flew out of Ireland for a business meeting, and flew back to Ireland on the same day, is not continuously resident in Ireland.

It also absurd for a judge to refer to a dictionary definition as if it has some kind of weight, when the only definition that matters is the legal definition. I can understand that Irish law may be lacking a precise definition of 'continuous residence', but that still doesn't explain his decision.

dulpit

I needed to send a lad at work to UK for day trip, he's Russian and is in final year before he can apply for citizenship. He said (this was a few weeks ago) that he couldn't due to this rule, he had seen on a message board from a few years ago that someone had hassle with the department or whoever makes decision because they had an exit and entry stamp in their passport in the final year. I told him he was being over the top, my sister's fiance is American and he got citizenship last year, they were on holidays in that final year.

He's been on holiday (in Ireland) last week and this, but looks like (for now) he's right. Which is a right pain in the hole for us, hopefully they'll emergency legislation this ASAP...

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

This ruling has certainly brought out a lot of knuggle dragging racists online.

Marcusm

Allinall wrote: »

He's only applying the law as it stands.

That particular law needs to be changed.

Is it though? The requirement is for continuous residence not continuous physical presence. Residence should not be equated with physical presence. A person may have their sole residence in a ireland but make may trips overseas. Provided these do not have them out of the country for more than half of the year and there is no single overseas jurisdiction which could be regarded as a “residence” then I fail to see how this can arise.

Zaph

The guy was out of the country for 100 days during the year long period he was claiming as his residency. I've no problem with the 3 days on business, there has to be some leeway to allow for that sort of thing and the legislation needs to be updated to take business trips, family emergencies, and even short holidays into account. Previously it was accepted that a person could be out of the country for up to 6 weeks without affecting that residency, but on top of the 3 days for business he was on holidays for 97 days. Even if the judge was accepting the previously accepted convention, he was still away for way over six weeks. I'm not really sure how he thinks he has grounds to appeal taking into account either the old interpretation of the judge's new one.

wilsixon

My wife and I had our applications rejected last year for this reason - 2 weeks holiday/conference in Europe for her and 5 weeks for me.
We had assumed we'd be fine as we were both under the six weeks. So it appears INIS were already applying this absurd understanding (at least in some cases) before this court ruling.

Twickers

Does this mean that all the TDs who went on their Junkets on St Patricks Day will have their citizens accreditation revoked ?
Might not be a bad idea

splinter65

Twickers wrote: »

Does this mean that all the TDs who went on their Junkets on St Patricks Day will have their citizens accreditation revoked ?
Might not be a bad idea

That’s not even close to a relevant analogy. What is a citizens accreditation anyway? There’s no such thing.
Nowhere does the law say that you’re not a citizen if you leave the country.
That would be ludicrous.
This is a rule pertaining to applications for citizenship. And it is a point about interpretation of a rule within that application process.

weldoninhio

You'd swear it was a hardship having to stay in Ireland for 365 days!!!

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

You'd swear it was a hardship having to stay in Ireland for 365 days!!!

Point. Missed.

Cheshire Cat

weldoninhio wrote: »

You'd swear it was a hardship having to stay in Ireland for 365 days!!!

It is if you have family abroad. We were contemplating to go for Irish Citizenship because it looks like we are here for good and we would like to be able to vote and it's easier to renew an Irish passport. Having to deal with the embassy isn't much fun.
My husband attends a lot of conferences and meetings abroad and I'm sure his employer wouldn't be impressed if he told them he had to stay put for an entire year.
We also have elderly parents who we go to see regularly. There are family occasions and so on.
We do have European passports, so it doesn't really matter, but it is still annoying.

splinter65

weldoninhio wrote: »

You'd swear it was a hardship having to stay in Ireland for 365 days!!!

For some it’s not just a hardship it’s impossible. Lots of people have to leave the country for work very frequently. Lots of people have unavoidable family occasions abroad. Imagine if you couldn’t visit your dying close family.

weldoninhio

splinter65 wrote: »

For some it’s not just a hardship it’s impossible. Lots of people have to leave the country for work very frequently. Lots of people have unavoidable family occasions abroad. Imagine if you couldn’t visit your dying close family.

How often is it going to happen that someone is dying, seriously. I'm sure if you explained the situation to work something could be done. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

How often is it going to happen that someone is dying, seriously. I'm sure if you explained the situation to work something could be done. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Or we could just interpret the legislation like any sane country would.
Why are we making excuses for this clown of a judge?

SoundsRight

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask people who want to become citizens of our country to actually stay here for 365 days.

CheweeB

On reading the legislation (I'm no expert)- but there is the following, I'm taking this to mean that in certain circumstances the Minister may apply discretion:

"16.—The Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation in the following cases, although the conditions for naturalisation (or any of them) are not complied with:

(a) where the applicant is of Irish descent or Irish associations;

(b) where the applicant is a parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor of Irish descent or Irish associations;

(c) where the applicant is a naturalised Irish citizen acting on behalf of his minor child;

(d) where the applicant is a woman who is married to a naturalised Irish citizen;

(e) where the applicant is married to a woman who is an Irish citizen (otherwise than by naturalisation);

(f) where the applicant is or has been resident abroad in the public service."

Tell me how

odyssey06 wrote: »

Or we could just interpret the legislation like any sane country would.
Why are we making excuses for this clown of a judge?

Because some people like the idea of anything inhibiting foreigners becoming citizens.

odyssey06

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask people who want to become citizens of our country to actually stay here for 365 days.

Yes it is.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say they must a resident of this state for 365 days and no others, but to say they cannot stay overnight outside the state even for 1 night is absurd and unreasonable. It's completely incompatible with our membership of the European Union, which has freedom of travel as one of its pillars & our common travel area with the UK.

Roberto_gas

Can someone get away with tax payment for the year if they are considered non-resident for the entire year based on this definition of continuous !

SoundsRight

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes it is.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say they must a resident of this state for 365 days and no others, but to say they cannot stay overnight outside the state even for 1 night is absurd and unreasonable. It's completely incompatible with our membership of the European Union, which has freedom of travel as one of its pillars & our common travel area with the UK.

It's got nothing to do with the EU or any travel arrangemnts. People still have the right to enter and leave the country. But if they want to apply for Irish citizenship, they have to stay here. There has to be some sort of fealty test. We're already throwing them around like confetti as it is.

odyssey06

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with the EU or any travel arrangemnts. People still have the right to enter and leave the country. But if they want to apply for Irish citizenship, they have to stay here. There has to be some sort of fealty test. We're already throwing them around like confetti as it is.

We're a country in a political association with EU states, one of the pillars of which is free movement. This test is contrary to that by placing an absurd and unreasonable restriction on that freedom which is not justifiable.

So this isn't a real test. Not going to a family member's funeral is not any kind of fealty test an EU country in the 21st century should be proud of or think reasonable - and the government agree with that. This chaos has been caused by an incompetent judge.

SoundsRight

odyssey06 wrote: »

We're a country in a political association with EU states, one of the pillars of which is free movement. This test is contrary to that by placing an absurd and unreasonable restriction on that freedom which is not justifiable.

So this isn't a real test. Not going to a family member's funeral is not any kind of fealty test an EU country in the 21st century should be proud of or think reasonable.

How is it contrary to free movement? People still have that right. The only way it would be contrary is if you banned people from leaving the country. I think you're conflating two separate issues.

odyssey06

SoundsRight wrote: »

How is it contrary to free movement? People still have that right. The only way it would be contrary is if you banned people from leaving the country. I think you're conflating two separate issues.

It places an unreasonable and unjustifiable restriction on that freedom by placing a severe obstruction on availing of it.
Even if we weren't in the EU, it would still be unreasonable, but especially so in light of that freedom.

The Irish government were operating with a reasonable measure of 6 weeks. This is a storm in a teacup caused by an inept judge who must have failed English at the LC.

splinter65

weldoninhio wrote: »

How often is it going to happen that someone is dying, seriously. I'm sure if you explained the situation to work something could be done. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

This is nonsense. You have a job an integral part of which involves you flying to other EU states for business meetings sometimes on a weekly basis.
What is your boss going to say if you land into the office now and say you can’t go to any of these meetings for 12 months?
Get real.
You have family in N Ireland and you live in Drogheda.
This ruling now says you can’t go into N Ireland even for one day.
Do you understand how unworkable it is?

splinter65

odyssey06 wrote: »

It places an unreasonable and unjustifiable restriction on that freedom by placing a severe obstruction on availing of it.
Even if we weren't in the EU, it would still be unreasonable, but especially so in light of that freedom.

The Irish government were operating with a reasonable measure of 6 weeks. This is a storm in a teacup caused by an inept judge who must have failed English at the LC.

I don’t think he’s inept at all.
Far from it.
I think he is highlighting an anomaly which may be used going forward by the depart of justice to refuse otherwise qualified people citizenship.
He is giving the government notice that they need to change the wording in the actual law to specify that 6 weeks outside the country is allowed.

splinter65

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask people who want to become citizens of our country to actually stay here for 365 days.

It is unreasonable. It’s very unreasonable to say that someone who lives in Donegal can’t travel into Derry to go to work or visit their mother.
It’s the very definition of unreasonable.

Charles Babbage

SoundsRight wrote: »

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask people who want to become citizens of our country to actually stay here for 365 days.

But you can stay in the country and leave the State.

ChikiChiki

weldoninhio wrote: »

You'd swear it was a hardship having to stay in Ireland for 365 days!!!

You know these people have families? Sometimes family members may become unwell or pass away.

Do you also know a lot of these people have jobs that require international travel? I know of one South American working from head office in Ireland that needs to travel across Europe to do audits. Thats their chosen career and opportunity which really worked hard for since they arrived for torpedo'd.

It is a ridiculous law in modern Ireland. It may have been a non issue in insular 1956 Ireland but in 2019 a huge issue in a global economy.

splinter65

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But you can stay in the country and leave the State.

No. the ruling includes going into N Ireland.

Seth Brundle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Or we could just interpret the legislation like any sane country would.
Why are we making excuses for this clown of a judge?

The judge is a clown for telling people how a law could be interpreted by those who want to read it that way?

Roberto_gas wrote: »

Can someone get away with tax payment for the year if they are considered non-resident for the entire year based on this definition of continuous !

No because they are two separate pieces of legislation which have nothing to do with each other. Residency is clearly defined within tax legislation. It is not clearly defined (to meet normal living) within the citizenship legislation.