Citizenship ruling.

o1s1n

This is a ****ing disaster.

I have someone close to me who has literally been granted citizenship permission by the minister and we are just waiting for a confirmation of the invite to the ceremony in September.

They were out of the country on a holiday for a few days in the year of the citizenship application went through - this was checked during the application process and it fell well within the permitted timeframe outside the country.

On top of that (and it's a small issue compared to the above disaster but an issue nonetheless) we have a holiday to Germany coming up in two weeks (spent a grand on really fancy festival tickets), it's only for 3 days but we've had it booked in for a year.

Had to go through the whole German Schengen visa process to travel.

So not only is the whole actual citizenship now up in the air, which has been worked on for two years, a holiday we've been looking forward to as a reward for the whole thing which we've had to get a visa for is now ****ed too.

I can't even!

Seth Brundle

Charles Babbage wrote: »

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

How exactly?

Varik

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 !

Just need to be resident not a continuous resident for that, so just over half the year in Ireland or less if you were resident for the last few years then you're ordinarily resident.

odyssey06

splinter65 wrote: »

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.

Fair point, scratch my comments about the judge being inept in light of what you've said.

MOH

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.

A fealty test? Great idea. They could do it after the annual jousting tournament.

dulpit

Agree with comments on judge - he's caught sloppy/inefficient law and now it's up to the TDs to fix. Will they be brought back from their recess though? Or will they wait until after the summer (and many peoples planned holidays) before doing something.

You'd hope the former...

Interesting/sad that this thread has brought out the typical element of boards re immigrants...

splinter65

dulpit wrote: »

Agree with comments on judge - he's caught sloppy/inefficient law and now it's up to the TDs to fix. Will they be brought back from their recess though? Or will they wait until after the summer (and many peoples planned holidays) before doing something.

You'd hope the former...

Interesting/sad that this thread has brought out the typical element of boards re immigrants...

Joe Soap in the street doesn’t know his refugee from his asylum seeker, he doesn’t know who can be here without need for a visa or a work permit, doesn’t understand who can claim to be an automatic Irish citizen and who has to apply to be considered one, who can get an Irish passport and who can’t, who has permission to work here and who hasn’t....
That’s ok. That’s human nature. It’s quite complicated too.
It’s when I read people posting their opinion as fact when it’s just completely wrong E.g. “ just arrive here off the boat and go straight to SW and get the dole and a house and a car” kind of stuff that it annoys me.

weldoninhio

splinter65 wrote: »

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?

Nothing stopping your family from NI coming to visit you.

weldoninhio

ChikiChiki wrote: »

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.

Unlucky, but the law is the law. Unless it changes he won't be becoming an Irish citizen. Won't affect his residency.

Pixel Eater

They should use this as an opportunity to overhaul the whole citizenship area. Bring in a citizenship test and maybe stricter criteria, especially for the like of those claiming an Irish passport due to Brexit when they've never even set foot in the country.

o1s1n

I'll give you a scenario so;

Person has been living here for 6 years, earns a 50k+ salary and paid tax on every cent of that to Irish revenue (without being able to claim any kind of social welfare, not that they'd want to mind you).

Had their citizenship application rubber stamped by the minister this year after paying the guts of 1000 euro to put the application through (which is not a a simple or easy process)

Is preparing to be naturalised in September, took time off work, booked a hotel to stay in Killarney, all as per the process in Ireland... and now this happens.

Clearly a 'dirty immigrant scammer' though right?

Greyfox

weldoninhio wrote: »

Nothing stopping your family from NI coming to visit you.

They shouldnt have to as the judge is just creating a silly inconvenience that helps nobody. Someone should be free to drive into another country for a couple of hours and back to your own country on the same day without anybody asking silly questions

weldoninhio wrote: »

Unlucky, but the law is the law. Unless it changes he won't be becoming an Irish citizen. Won't affect his residency.

Its a stupid interpretation of the law by another judge who doesnt think using common sense is a good idea.

Seth Brundle

Greyfox wrote: »

They shouldnt have to as the judge is just creating a silly inconvenience that helps nobody. Someone should be free to drive into another country for a couple of hours and back to your own country on the same day without anybody asking silly questions

Its a stupid interpretation of the law by another judge who doesnt think using common sense is a good idea.

You obviously don't understand how legal interpetation works.
The judge didn't create anything. The judge's common sense has absolutely nothing to do with what has been raised.

The judge informed the people that an issue with a certain law exists. It is now up to the people to have that resolved. It is not the judge being akward or anything. The judge revealed a legal fact that had gone unnoticed and could now be used by someone to oppose another person's citizenship application.

As for someone driving into another country and back without any questions, nobody is preventing this.

splinter65

weldoninhio wrote: »

Nothing stopping your family from NI coming to visit you.

If my parents are bed bound in a nursing home? Really?

dudara

A lot of well-paid, professional workers who live in Ireland and travel for work will be impacted by this. It’s going to cause issues for a lot of employers if staff can’t travel at all.

osarusan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The judge informed the people that an issue with a certain law exists. It is now up to the people to have that resolved. It is not the judge being akward or anything. The judge revealed a legal fact that had gone unnoticed and could now be used by someone to oppose another person's citizenship application.

I don't really agree.


As far as I can see, 'informing the people that an issue with a certain law exists' occurred through him making the interpretation he did. Until now, that issue didn't exist as nobody had ever interpreted the term in that way before.


Is your argument basically by interpreting the wording of the law in the way that he interpreted it, he has made people aware that the wording of the law can be interpreted in the way that he interpreted it?

Seth Brundle

osarusan wrote: »

As far as I can see, 'informing the people that an issue with a certain law exists' occurred through him making the interpretation he did. Until now, that issue didn't exist as nobody had ever interpreted the term in that way before.

The judge wasn't doing this for the craic. He did this after presiding over a High Court hearing.
The state used the argument that the person who brought the case did not have unbroken residence here for a year before he applied.
From the IT:

Mr Justice Barrett said the Minister’s discretionary practice of allowing applicants six weeks out of the country, for holiday or other reasons, and more time in exceptional circumstances, is not permitted by law.

He noted section 15.1 provides, on receipt of an application for a certificate of naturalisation, the Minister “may, in his absolute discretion, grant the application if satisfied that the applicant has had a period of one year’s continuous residence in the State immediately before the date of the application”.

The judge found section 15.1 allows the Minister no discretion in relation to the “continuous” residence requirement. He said, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, “continuous” means “unbroken, uninterrupted, connected throughout in space or time”.

osarusan wrote: »

Is your argument basically by interpreting the wording of the law in the way that he interpreted it, he has made people aware that the wording of the law can be interpreted in the way that he interpreted it?

It is not my argument. It is a ruling from the High Court.

The judge said his decision “might seem unfair” in a world where many people travel abroad for work and take foreign breaks more than once a year but it is what the relevant law requires. The cure for any such unfairness “lies in the gift of the legislature”, he added.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-may-be-unable-to-appeal-controversial-citizenship-ruling-1.3960412

SoundsRight

MOH wrote: »

A fealty test? Great idea. They could do it after the annual jousting tournament.

Would you not want immigrants to have some kind of deference to our country? We're not a country club.

o1s1n

I am fretting about taking a break in Killarney as it is to attend a citizenship ceremony (they take place in Killarney) that is meant to happen in September, and was two years of paperwork in the making.

This has now been thrown up in the air and puts a kibosh on all of our short term to long term travel plans until it's sorted, as well as the scary overall implication for the citizenship application in general that I really don't want to think about right now.

But sure ra ra ra lets make it all about 'dem scammer immigrants' and not actual Irish citizens, like me, that it is currently negatively impacting in a huge way.

TheChizler

Strange how the judge looked up the dictionary for the word "continuous" but not "residence", unless the report left that out.

Greyfox

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You obviously don't understand how legal interpetation works.
The judge didn't create anything. The judge's common sense has absolutely nothing to do with what has been raised.

The judge informed the people that an issue with a certain law exists. It is now up to the people to have that resolved. It is not the judge being akward or anything. The judge revealed a legal fact that had gone unnoticed and could now be used by someone to oppose another person's citizenship application.

As for someone driving into another country and back without any questions, nobody is preventing this.

I have a good understanding of how it works, ultimately all the other judges used there common sense and this judge didnt. Common sense have everything to do with it, its something we are right to expect from judges.

He didnt just inform the people he ALSO made a silly decision himself and was been arkward. Someone driving into another country is someone leaving the EU so there is a legal problem for some people according to this judge

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

himu wrote: »

Some of the posters are borderline hysterical, its no wonder those who see themselves as modern left leaning are seen are unhinged by the masses.
We have a poster fretting about taking a break in Killarney?
Going into Norther Ireland? Get in your car, get a bus, no one will ever know or care.
Your work colleague earning €50K working for a multinational in Ireland, going back to Guadalajara to see his family, authorities won’t care.
This law will only be uses for “Refugees” who fled their country in fear for their life, who then go back for a holiday in Kabul, Lagos and so on, in other word the scammers.
Quit the panic and think before you let you emotion take over and start shouting racist, a no deal Brexit will see Ireland flooded with scammers from the UK, you will be delighted with this judgement once that happens, mark my words

Have you never heard of any of the cases of people being stopped at the border for this exact reason? No, of course you haven't, because you are clueless on the topic.
Actually, under this law, the authorities will care if somebody leaves the country, for any circumstances. That's exactly what the judge said. I get the impression you haven't read any of the news stories at all.

Cordell

I'm also affected, potentially at least as everytime I contemplated going through the process the bureaucracy put me off, but I'm also happy to see the outrage of people that think that their entitlement to Irish citizenship is real. It is not, it's a privilege, and not a right.

No doubt though that this situation will be resolved shortly.

Varik

TheChizler wrote: »

Strange how the judge looked up the dictionary for the word "continuous" but not "residence", unless the report left that out.

So whatever adverb or in this case adjective used can be ignored, and has no effect.

Resident, Ordinary resident, continuous resident, or none resident.

It makes no difference.

Resident was already legally defines.

osarusan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The judge wasn't doing this for the craic. He did this after presiding over a High Court hearing.
The state used the argument that the person who brought the case did not have unbroken residence here for a year before he applied.
From the IT:



It is not my argument. It is a ruling from the High Court.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-may-be-unable-to-appeal-controversial-citizenship-ruling-1.3960412

Again, I disagree.


Here's the part you quoted as relevant:

He noted section 15.1 provides, on receipt of an application for a certificate of naturalisation, the Minister “may, in his absolute discretion, grant the application if satisfied that the applicant has had a period of one year’s continuous residence in the State immediately before the date of the application”.

The judge found section 15.1 allows the Minister no discretion in relation to the “continuous” residence requirement. He said, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, “continuous” means “unbroken, uninterrupted, connected throughout in space or time”.

I'm not disputing the judge's finding that the Minister has no discretion in relation to the continuous residence requirement.

I'm taking issue with the judge's use of an Oxford dictionary definition of 'continuous' to interpret the term 'continuous residence' as meaning 365 days without any time spent outside whatsoever the state.

As I said earlier, if a man travels to Belfast for a meeting and back to ROI the same day, I think it is absurd to argue that his residence in Ireland has been interrupted, any more than my residence in my own home has been interrupted if I even walk outside it.

Seth Brundle

osarusan wrote: »

Again, I disagree.


Here's the part you quoted as relevant:





I'm not disputing the judge's finding that the Minister has no discretion in relation to the continuous residence requirement.

I'm taking issue with the judge's use of an Oxford dictionary definition of 'continuous' to interpret the term 'continuous residence' as meaning 365 days without any time spent outside whatsoever the state.

As I said earlier, if a man travels to Belfast for a meeting and back to ROI the same day, I think it is absurd to argue that his residence in Ireland has been interrupted, any more than my residence in my own home has been interrupted if I even walk outside it.

We'll you train at the bar and become a High Court judge and then you can make a legal ruling on the matter.
Until then, the judge is correct no matter what you think!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We'll you train at the bar and become a High Court judge and then you can make a legal ruling on the matter.
Until then, the judge is correct no matter what you think!

Unless the supreme court overturn it. In which case that judge is wrong.

mad muffin

So now when I travel to France on holiday for 10 days I’m no longer a resident of Ireland?

osarusan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We'll you train at the bar and become a High Court judge and then you can make a legal ruling on the matter.
Until then, the judge is correct no matter what you think!

Pretty weak reply to be honest.

Seth Brundle

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Unless the supreme court overturn it. In which case that judge is wrong.

Yes but that obviously as the SC carries more weight than the "the judge is a muppet" and "I think the judge is wrong" posts we've been enlightened with