Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Connor Lenihan & Immigration
Options
-
04-01-2008 8:08pm#1Join Date:Posts: 13664
I thought that McDowell was bad in his bumbling manner of right wing tyranny, but I have to take my hat off to Lenihan:"The major delays in settling and dealing with asylum applications at the moment is principally focused on the legal challenges that are being taken by a very active and voracious group of barristers down in the Bar library who are representing clients virtually on a 'no foal, no fee' basis," he said.
Vulnerable asylum seekers were being given unrealistic hopes by some lawyers when in most cases their chances of a successful appeal were limited, he continued.
"We'll have to persuade the Bar library and the legal profession to perhaps ease off and stop throwing cases into the High Court automatically. We had similar experiences with the legal profession with regard to Army deafness, and people had to talk to them and say: 'Look, this isn't on."
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0104/1199313419896.html
He is criticising lawyers for taking cases on a no win no fee basis. A lawyer who takes on such a case does so either:
a) because what the Minister did was so obviously wrong that there is a great chance of success, or
b) because they believe in Immigration rights so much that being paid for their work is secondary.
Whatever criticisms of lawyers making lots of money from tribunals, personal injury claims, whatever, how can you criticse lawyers for taking a case that is in the public good, and that their chances of success are often few? He even says that there is little chance of success in the courts.
Instead of asking lawyers not to fight for rights, should he not just give peopel their rights instead?0
Comments
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »how can you criticse lawyers for taking a case that is in the public good, and that their chances of success are often few?
Not everyone will agree with your definition of what is in the public good.
I dont think multiple levels of appeal after appeal after appeal are in the public good. It costs a fortune in time and effort of everyone involved and ties up the system. Surely you agree that at some point there has to be a cutoff otherwise the system becomes unworkable and makes itself open to abuse.
Out of curiosity - how many appeals would you say is a fair number ?
My vote would be one appeal - and in extremely exceptional circumstances - 2 appeals against a decision.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Instead of asking lawyers not to fight for rights, should he not just give peopel their rights instead?
Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this ? It is not specific so its hard to know whether to agree or disagree with you on this.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13664
Out of curiosity - how many appeals would you say is a fair number ?
Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this ? It is not specific so its hard to know whether to agree or disagree with you on this.
I'd say this, in an ideal world they'd get it right first time.
Let's take 3 scenarios:
1) A person who is legally entitled to live/work/reside in Ireland (say because they are genuinely married to an Irish citizen) is refused those rights. They get a lawyer to appeal the decision and win (because they should have been given those rights in the first place). The lawyer gets his cut and justice is served. But it would have been so much easier if the MJELR granted the right in the first place.
2) A person who is not legally entitled to live/work/reside in Ireland(say because they came over here without a visa and have no other reason to be here) is refused those rights. They get a lawyer who advises them there is no point of appeal. They don't appeal.
3) A person who is possibly entitled to refugee status in Ireland (because they are fleeing from a discriminating country) is refused asylum status because the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is well know for rejecting appeals out of hand. They get a lawyer to appeal the decision which he/she loses (because the court, after looking at the case properly, decides not to grant asylum status). The lawyer doesn't get paid and justice is served because at least now the issue has been properly heard. The RAT should have heard been fair in the first place.
In the first case, the appeals are necessary because the state was wrong. How can you say that these appeals should not be taken?
In the second case, the lawyers realise that there is no chance of success and so don't get involved (knowing there is no money or moral benefit to them).
In the third case, the appeal is arguably necessary, but it is not known until the case is heard properly. This probably accounts for the majority of these appeals, but the thing is that the lawyers take these cases on on a no foal no fee basis, so if they loose they get nothing. That's hardly selfish on their part, and if the case was decided properly in the first instance these cases would fall into either 1) or 2) above.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »How can you say that these appeals should not be taken?
I did not disagree with the concept of appeals. I never said 'it is wrong to appeal'.
I do take issue with repeated, hopeless - countless appeals. I believe there should be a limit enforced to protect the integrity of the system - that is all.johnnyskeleton wrote: »and if the case was decided properly in the first instance these cases would fall into either 1) or 2) above.
Do you mean if citizenship were granted then there would be no need for appeals ?
I could be misreading you this time - (if thats the case its not intentional).
I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.0 -
he seemed to be gloating yesterday, I didn't see him say one thing about the international situation of asylum seekers, just feck the iranians and iraqis, back to their idles they go.
saw headlines yesterday one beside the other
asylum figure down lowest in ten years!
economy worst in ten years!
so is that good news or bad news for the FF types huh?
he's complaning about lawyers, they finally won a battle with the refugee tribunals to be able to avoid going to an official who turned down almost 100% of the applications and who also boasted about it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13664
I did not disagree with the concept of appeals. I never said 'it is wrong to appeal'.
I meant how could one - as in how can the Minister suggest that these appeals should not be taken?I do take issue with repeated, hopeless - countless appeals. I believe there should be a limit enforced to protect the integrity of the system - that is all.
Generally it goes like this: application either by paper or interview (the applicant usually doesn't have legal representation at this stage). In some cases e.g. asylum, there is an appeals board (the Refugee Appeals Tribunal). The applicants are usually represented at this stage but it's a fairly rapid process, not an excessive drain on the economy and it's the first proper hearing.
After this (when the application is refused), they go to the High Court. This is the first real appeal (technically it's not an appeal, it's a court action seeking an order that the application be dealt with properly). After this, in very exceptional circumstances, there is an appeal to the supreme court.
So I don't think the issue is with one applicant making 5 or 6 appeals (there are very few circumstances where this is even an option). Instead, the complaint is that there are too many refused applicants seeking relief in the High Court.Do you mean if citizenship were granted then there would be no need for appeals ?
Not in absolute terms no. But where the person should be granted citizenship/refugee status/other right they should be given it at first instance, and not have to go all the way to the High Court or Supreme Court just to enforce their rights.
The Minister is complaining about the amount of appeals, but is ignoring the manner in which applications are refused in an arbitrary, irrational or downright incompetent way at first instance. Imagine, for example, it was the unwritten policy of your local planning office to refuse planning applications out of hand (obviously they might grant one or two minor planning applications so as not to arouse suspicion). Everyone in that area who wanted to get planning permission would have to go through a bogus system and then apply to An Bord Pleanala or eventually the High Court to get the real application dealt with. Imagine then that your local counsellor had the audacity to ask people to stop appealing to An Bord Pleanala or the High Court because it was costing too much to the state.
Here, we are talking about not just civil rights and human rights, but Ireland's international obligations to allow EU citizens the same rights as Irish citizens and to grant asylum to people fleeing oppression and tyranny. If they could get it right first time and say "you are a genuine applicant, application granted" or "you are not a genuine applicant, application refused" then there would be very few appeals.
Whatever about critising lawyers who make a lot of money, e.g. tribunal lawyers and the group he mentions in the statement (the army deafness claims), the lawyers for these cases are taking on cases on a no win no fee basis in circumstances where there is a very small liklihood of success. So if a lawyer takes on 20 cases and only 4 or 5 win, he will only get paid for 1/5 or 1/4 of the work he does. I don't think you could possibly say that they are in it for the money as much as because they believe that what they are doing is right.I could be misreading you this time - (if thats the case its not intentional).
I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.
Yes we do get to decide who can live here and on what basis, but this is subject to our laws, constitution and the international agreements we have signed up to. Obviously there there will be unsuccessful applicants, and obviously many, even most, of those unsuccessful applicants don't deserve and are not entitled to live here. But by lumping in with these refusals a substantial number of genuine applicants, the government is creating an injustice. However, instead of trying to redress this injustice, they are saying that they that have been wronged should shut up and ship out, and not waste money on the appeal that would grant them their rights.0 -
Advertisement
-
I feel that it has become evident that the Minister & Co are increasingly pushing towards a closed door policy, reason due to the EU, free movement and new accession states...
The minister is also aware of the erosion of the courts policy on curial deference and its recent willingness to review decisions of the RAT due to misevaluation etc...that in my is the reason why he is having a go at lawyers taking cases...0 -
'no foal, no fee'
Can anyone clarify; if there is a foal, is a fee paid to the lawyer?0 -
curial deference?0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13664
"no foal no fee" - you don't produce the goods you don't get paid. It's a system that doesn't exist anymore in Ireland, but solicitors used to take on cases on the basis that if they don't win you don't have to pay them any legal costs, and if you win they get a percentage of the winning. What it means here is that, although the lawyers are charging a fee, unless they win the appeal (and are awarded costs against the state) the lawyers aren't going to see a penny in fees. I suppose it comes from the time that legal disputes often centered around livestock.
curial deference - curia is the latin for court, curial deference means that when the court is asked to review a decision of a public body, it should respect that body's expert opinion to such an extent that it won't interfere with it's finding of fact unless that finding is very obviously wrong. It also means that the courts won't second-guess the wording of legislation and must interpret it as it is written unless it is so illogical as to be rendered meaningless.
Basically the courts usually have a lot of respect for the decisions of local authorities etc, but because the decisions of the RAT can be so illogical, they are more prepared to look at the decisions more closely.
I suppose what I really what to know is, will the minister get a lot of support from the "damn fat cat lawyers" types, or is this something that might get civil liberties supporters to focus more on what is actually going on in immigration in the country?0 -
So,'no foal no fee' is not charity work. It is underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time.
But whether they win or lose, I (the taxpayer); I lose. The 'state', which I fund, has to provide a lawyer to make the opposing argument, and pay a very expensive judge to preside, also clerks,admin,maintenence. Meanwhilw my own search for justice is delayed.
Let's end the financial incentive for appeals which are the legal equivalent of announcing, 'that coin didn't fall the way I intended, I'll give myself a second throw' when playing pitch and toss.
Second and subsequent appeals should require a financial bond, lodged beforehand by the lawyer, which is equivalent to the state's likely costs and supplemented if drawn-out proceedings add to those costs; which is given to the Revenue Commissioners if the appeal fails.0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly a judge is paid per annum and not case by case...secondly why should the lawyer enter the bond?
It is very true that these cases have a huge drain on the coffers but I think that the point that the previous poster was making was that If these rights were given in the first place, we would not have the present situation...
Also, is access to the courts and legal assistance (where subsequent appeals are not widely available) not a fundamental right given by the European charter of human rights?0 -
Clarify something for me please; if someone is in this country illegally and the authorities are rightly deporting them, how have they got recourse to the law? Why are they just not shipped out. Am I naive or am I missing something?0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13664
cabinteelytom wrote: »So,'no foal no fee' is not charity work. It is underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time.
Well I never said that it is charity work, but I wouldn't characterise it as underemployed lawyers making a gamble with their time. The minister isn't saying that these cases are taken on by bored junior and unsuccessful lawyers, he is saying that they are taken by a few outspoken lawyers. These lawyers could easily make several times more money by taking other types of cases but they focus on these cases because, in all liklihood, they actually believe that it's right.cabinteelytom wrote: »But whether they win or lose, I (the taxpayer); I lose. The 'state', which I fund, has to provide a lawyer to make the opposing argument, and pay a very expensive judge to preside, also clerks,admin,maintenence.
As I've already said, where it is clear cut that the person doesn't have the case, I doubt the lawyers would bother, and where it is clear cut that the applicant should win, then it is the state who are wasting the money, not the applicants. In all the cases in between, if the immigration system was dealt with properly at the bottom (arguably also costing more money) there would be less appeals and thus this wouldn't be a problem. But instead of taking this politically dangerous course of action, the Minister picks on what have traditionally been an easy target - the lawyers. But whatever way you want to look at it, these lawyers that he is referring to are basically taking someone's case, that they believe to be correct, without any guarantee of being paid. Could you imagine if you were, for example a doctor working with dying people, and you only got paid if you kept them alive. While a doctor can try to keep them alive, ultimately it is out of his hands, and in reality most will die. Does that stop it from being a vocational calling to try to stop them from dying? Does it necessarily follow that the only doctors that would take such a job are underemployed and making a gamble with their time?cabinteelytom wrote: »Meanwhilw my own search for justice is delayed.
Let's end the financial incentive for appeals which are the legal equivalent of announcing, 'that coin didn't fall the way I intended, I'll give myself a second throw' when playing pitch and toss.
I take it from this that you have some matter in the courts which is taking a long time to get through? How would you feel if the Minister said "listen, you're taking up too much valuable court time, and the other side is being paid by the taxpayers/insurance payers. So just drop your case now because you probably won't win, and leave the courts for other business?"
In any event, I would hardly call being paid for maybe 1 in 4 cases a "financial incentive" (bear in mind that the state is allowed to examine a lawyer's fees, and they can only charge for the particular case and not for the unsuccessful ones) and these appeals aren't "new rehearing" type appeals, they are appeals on specific points of law, proceedure and the constitution. You can't simply have a second throw, you have to have a specific point of appeal.bartholowmewbinn wrote:Second and subsequent appeals should require a financial bond, lodged beforehand by the lawyer, which is equivalent to the state's likely costs and supplemented if drawn-out proceedings add to those costs; which is given to the Revenue Commissioners if the appeal fails.
Great. Why not say that every applicant for asylum in this country must lodge €5,000 immediately as they enter the country, otherwise they can be sent straight back. This would, effectively, prevent perhaps 99% of asylum seekers even making an application for asylum, which would be great for protecting your precious tax euros and would make sure that if anyone has been tortured, oppressed and chased out of their country we won't even pretend to care.
But that aside, as I've said already, the Minister is not really concerned about the same applicant making 2 or 3 appeals, he's concerned about the number of applicants who make 1 appeal to the High Court. For asylum, the costs of the initial application and the appeal to the RAT are very low (there are no lawyers in the initial application and a small fee for one lawyer in the RAT. For most other types of immigration cases (i.e. the vast majority), there is simply an application which is accepted or rejected. I don't think the minister is concerned about this stage of the system, he is attacking the lawyers who argue that the applicants were treated unfairly or denied their rights during this application proceedure. There might occasionally be a second appeal to the supreme court, but this is only in exceptional circumstances.
So it's not like there are a few people having 3 or 4 bites of the cherry for no reason other than the lawyer's hope of getting paid and the applicant trying to stay here for a bit longer (which is how the minister would suggest it), but it is that the system is very unfair, there are lawyers challenging this unfairness and it seems that the minister is trying to both stigmatise them as greedy wasters and also to blame them for the "grief and difficulty" in the immigration system (as though it wasn't the incompetence and unfairness of his ministry that was at fault).bartholomewbinn wrote: »Clarify something for me please; if someone is in this country illegally and the authorities are rightly deporting them, how have they got recourse to the law? Why are they just not shipped out. Am I naive or am I missing something?
You're missing something. They are either legally in the country but have been illegally refused their rights, or it has not yet been determined in a just and reasonable manner whether they are entiteld to be legally in the country or not. In any event, not all immigration cases are about deportation, a lot of them are about the right to work, study, reside, etc.
In relation to your question how have they got recourse to the law, everybody has recorse to the law, if they didn't, we wouldn't live in a democracy. Why, for example, aren't all people accused of crimes simply executed? It would be a lot simpler, and probably very popular, but it would be the end of our system of government and justice.0 -
I am not talking about people who have committed crimes, or people who are legally here and are being illegally refused their rights. What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?0
-
It must first be determined whether or not they are here illegally. It should also be noted that very few asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, have "proper documentation".bartholomewbinn wrote: »What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately.0 -
It must first be determined whether or not they are here illegally. It should also be noted that very few asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, have "proper documentation".
Virtually every asylum applicant that arrives here has come from another EU country and that is where they should have made their asylum application. Direct flights into Ireland from non European countries (apart from the USA) are few. We should simply send them back to where they just came from as soon as possible; we should not be creating problems for ourselves by letting them in here. This of course can be a problem with our open border with the United Kingdom, but a bit more vigilance would stop a lot of it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13664
bartholomewbinn wrote: »What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?
They usually are deported after a brief visit to mountjoy. Some of them apply for asylum, others require time to speak to their embassy if, for example, they have lost their passport, but the ones that don't are simply deported. Lawyers often aren't invloved, but if the person wants to speak to a lawyer they are entitled to do so. If they, as you say, have no right or reason to be here then there won't be a legal challenge. This is not the problem. The problem is all the other people who are being denied their rights and who are entitled to come into and remain in the country but are denied those rights. Here's a post about someone who, under law, is entitled to work in Ireland. And arguably all they want to do is live and work and be productive here. But they are just refused for no apparent reason.bartholomewbinn wrote: »Virtually every asylum applicant that arrives here has come from another EU country and that is where they should have made their asylum application. Direct flights into Ireland from non European countries (apart from the USA) are few. We should simply send them back to where they just came from as soon as possible; we should not be creating problems for ourselves by letting them in here. This of course can be a problem with our open border with the United Kingdom, but a bit more vigilance would stop a lot of it.
Dublin is an international airport and has flights coming in from all over the world - but in any case have you never heard of transfer flights? What we can't do is simply send asylum seekers back to where they just came from, because we are obliged to consider their application under international law. You could argue that international law is creating problems for us, but that's a different story.0 -
bartholomewbinn wrote: »I am not talking about people who have committed crimes, or people who are legally here and are being illegally refused their rights. What I am asking is why people who are actually trespassing in this country, i.e. non EU citizens who arrive here without proper documentation, who have absolutely no right to be here are not deported immediately. Why are they not simply detained where they land and sent back to where they came from at the earliest opportunity. Why should lawyers be involved? They don’t need legal representation; they just need to be sent back to where they came from. Why should it be a problem for the Irish state if people deliberately arrive here illegally?
you seem to have a problem with understanding the basic concept of asylum, or your are deliberately pretending not to get it for particular reason.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I have to take my hat off to Lenihan
This is Conor Lenihan being interviewed, not Brian. Very important distinction, for a number of reasons. Any way of changing this thread's title?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13664
Rogelio Proud Unit wrote: »This is Conor Lenihan being interviewed, not Brian. Very important distinction, for a number of reasons. Any way of changing this thread's title?
Sorry, you're right. My mind skipped over that significant detail and went straight to the audacious comments. I'll see if a mod will change it.
Edit:Much obliged, psi.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13664
-
There is one N in Conor
0 -
I think that it as a nation we have a legitimate right to decide who gets to live in our territory. This means that the answer given to applicants for citizenship will not always be a positive one - this fact alone does not indicate a bias or a problem.
Do you also think that Ireland has the right to ignore EU law and it's own law in regards to deciding who can live here and who can't?
Some examples:
Currently non-EU spouses of EU nationals are being denied residency because they did not reside in another Member State first
THIS IS AGAINST EU LAW!
The INIS is rejecting citizenship and LTR applications for pretty much any reason they want to as they have "ministerial discretion". While the last two are taking 3 years and 1 1/2 years respectively to process (in which you HAVE to maintain for work permit status) Some examples of this are if someone has collected the dole after being completely legal to do so ie they have paid over 2 years into PAYE.
Another is if they have broken periods in their 5 years of reckonable residence..ie they were on a work permit one year and on a spouse (eu rights) stamp another.
If they have any broken period of employment...ie you are on a work permit and unfairly dismissed but legally allowed to take up employment with another company.
Recently several Nigerians have been detained in Belfast by INIS, in some cases for months, even though they had visas for Ireland. One woman had just given birth when she was detained in Belfast.
Now that you have some fine examples of the MFJ Brian Lenehan's contempt for immigrants...do you think he is biased?0 -
Do you also think that Ireland has the right to ignore EU law and it's own law in regards to deciding who can live here and who can't?
If I say that then its a good guess I do - if I dont say that then your making a statement in the form of a question. Otherwise you can go by what I actually said.0 -
-
Then can you tell me if you think that there is a bias in the system against foreignors or not?
I think the burden of proof on that would be yours & you havent proven institutional bias or anything close to it.
Your an american right ? I think there would be a great deal of anti-americanism in Ireland especially among the left - you would get no argument from me on that one but how that could translate into an immigration system being prejudiced against you is beyond me.0 -
I think the burden of proof on that would be yours & you havent proven institutional bias or anything close to it.
The system itself is set up to allow ANY bias that an individual immigration official might have. I've given you examples where that has happened on a wide scale. It seems pretty obvious to me...but then I'm living it so maybe it isn't so easy to ignore.
I told you about the illegal denying of residence to non-eu spouses of EU nationals because they haven't lived in another EU state. Thats proof right there.
That doesnt' take into account the apparent purposeful slowdown of LTR and citizenship applications by the INIS which is going on at the moment. It beggars belief that they are just overwhelmed. It would mean that each citizenship application is taking over a week to process. They are either lazy beyond comprehension or its an intentional slowdown to shake loose as many foreigners is possible. Say what you will about civil servants but I can't believe they are that lazy.Your an american right ? I think there would be a great deal of anti-americanism in Ireland especially among the left - you would get no argument from me on that one but how that could translate into an immigration system being prejudiced against you is beyond me.
Thats rubbish and a shabby attempt to tar the "left". I'm also not saying that it's biased against me personally. I haven't even seen the worst of it as I'm english speaking, a professional and white.0 -
The system itself is set up to allow ANY bias that an individual immigration official might have. I've given you examples where that has happened on a wide scale. .
You have mentioned anecdotes that prove nothing.
On the subject of immigration there are lots of anecdotes doing the rounds, many would be less than favourable to immigrants - so if we are to ignore those as anecdotal why are yours somehow a valid indicator of how the system is functioning ?
If immigration officials have leeway to use their considerable experience to ferret out false stories for whatever reason I would be more inclined to take their word for it in all honesty as they are the ones who see and hear all the bogus stories on a daily basis.It seems pretty obvious to me...but then I'm living it so maybe it isn't so easy to ignore.
Another way of saying that is that you are not looking at it with any degree of detachment.
This is the immigration system of Ireland - I am Irish and so its there to represent my interests same as the interests of all Irish people. If an american or any potential immigrant doesnt agree with the way its run then then they are free to go home. I dont see how just because you want to live here you feel you should be given a clean run at slagging off our institutions that cost us millions each year and that work in the interests of Irish people but also as a result of you wanting to live here.
I cant imagine an Irish person in your equivalent situation in the US waiting on their case to be reviewed with your attitude. IF anything that attitude in itself would be grounds for refusal dont you think ? Thats assuming they would be permitted to even stay while their case was decided in any event which is doubtful.
If you are one of the people going through the system (who hasnt yet heard a 'yes' answer) you are bound to have a less appreciative view of it.
I think there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest. Rather that than allow bogus people in who will only encourage more of the same.
Your looking at this from the perspective of a potential immigrant who wants a speedy 'yes'- I am looking at it from the perspective of an Irish person who is concerned that we are not deluged with the wrong sort of people who either are not skilled or are not interested in working here and contributing to our economy. On balance the interests of Irish people should come first here. If that means a delay to address our legitimate concerns then so be it. Its not intentional and you will just have to live with it.I told you about the illegal denying of residence to non-eu spouses of EU nationals because they haven't lived in another EU state. Thats proof right there.
If there is a system wide mis-reading and mis-application of the law then I think that any one of this country's army of idiotic do gooders and ambulance/publicity chasing scumbag solicitors can take an action on.That doesnt' take into account the apparent purposeful slowdown of LTR and citizenship applications by the INIS which is going on at the moment. It beggars belief that they are just overwhelmed. It would mean that each citizenship application is taking over a week to process. They are either lazy beyond comprehension or its an intentional slowdown to shake loose as many foreigners is possible. Say what you will about civil servants but I can't believe they are that lazy.
Its also possible that they are trying to deal with numbers of bogus people looking to bleed our benefits state dry. Them taking care over every application is a good thing in my view. Unless I am wrong if these people filled in their paperwork and got approved before deciding to force the issue by coming here then they would not be in this situation of having to (shock -horror) wait for their case to be dealt with.
Ireland has taken in a record amount of immigrants /refugees in the shortest time imaginable and put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it. In light of the circumstances and in light of a total absence of any evidence I am prepared to give our system the benefit of the doubt.0 -
Advertisement
-
You know I think it's rich when Irish people get all xenophobic considering your diasporic tendencies.You have mentioned anecdotes that prove nothing.
On the subject of immigration there are lots of anecdotes doing the rounds, many would be less than favourable to immigrants - so if we are to ignore those as anecdotal why are yours somehow a valid indicator of how the system is functioning ?
Not anecdotes when they are FACTS!
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=21903
You sound like you could do with reading a few posts there and get a little education in immigration.If immigration officials have leeway to use their considerable experience to ferret out false stories for whatever reason I would be more inclined to take their word for it in all honesty as they are the ones who see and hear all the bogus stories on a daily basis.
I thought your excuse was that Ireland doesn't have very much experience with immigration.
Most immigration officials I've encountered don't know where Nigeria is much less that it's a politically unstable country that persecutes people for speaking out against the government. Oh and that a fair few Irish went there to take land from the natives when the British owned it.Another way of saying that is that you are not looking at it with any degree of detachment.
No I've lost patience with it as it's screwing tens of thousand of people who have followed the law and paid their taxes just to have an over priviledged, incompetant asshole try and send as many of us packing as possible and ignoring Irish law as well as EU law to do it.This is the immigration system of Ireland - I am Irish and so its there to represent my interests same as the interests of all Irish people. If an american or any potential immigrant doesnt agree with the way its run then then they are free to go home.
It's in your interest to be in the EU and its your interest that your government treat everyone according to EU and Irish law.
Its in Irish people's interest that you be able to move about freely within the EU and your potential partners/spouses be granted same.
It's in your interest that immigrant workers that contribute heavily to your economy and pay more taxes than you do are treated fairly.I dont see how just because you want to live here you feel you should be given a clean run at slagging off our institutions that cost us millions each year and that work in the interests of Irish people but also as a result of you wanting to live here.
I DO LIVE HERE!!!! I can slag them off because I help pay for them. Your mr lenihan IS costing you and I (in addition to the same taxes you pay I also have to pay a tax in the form of the EUR100 for the GNIB card every year) millions when he subverts Irish and EU law as the article above so states.I cant imagine an Irish person in your equivalent situation in the US waiting on their case to be reviewed with your attitude. IF anything that attitude in itself would be grounds for refusal dont you think ? Thats assuming they would be permitted to even stay while their case was decided in any event which is doubtful.
My attitude is colored by your govenments treatment of me and thousands like me. Conor Lenihan wants us foreigners to integrate. Do you think we are likley to do that if he is trying to screw us?
Speaking of Irish immigrants in the US. Bertie is trying to have the illegals Irish treated all special unlike the same illegals here in Ireland.If you are one of the people going through the system (who hasnt yet heard a 'yes' answer) you are bound to have a less appreciative view of it.
Most definitely if the person running the system is trying to break Irish and EU law to do it. That my friend is the very definition of systematic bias.I think there are legitimate concerns that the system is there to address and bogus immgirants and welfare tourism etc are serious enough that I can live with a waiting list stretching into years and years to be honest. Rather that than allow bogus people in who will only encourage more of the same.
Where are all these welfare tourists? I can tell you that right now I am in need of social welfare as I was unfairly dismissed recently. However I cannot claim it as I will lose my citizenship claim. That's in spite of me paying into PAYE for 8 years and being legally entitled to it.Your looking at this from the perspective of a potential immigrant who wants a speedy 'yes'- I am looking at it from the perspective of an Irish person who is concerned that we are not deluged with the wrong sort of people who either are not skilled or are not interested in working here and contributing to our economy. On balance the interests of Irish people should come first here. If that means a delay to address our legitimate concerns then so be it. Its not intentional and you will just have to live with it.
No I will not just have to live with it. And the evidence is that your government is breaking the law! I will get together with like minded people and do what it legally takes to make them answerable to the law and I will do my best to educate the ignorant.
I do not want a speedy anything. I have waited patiently, obeyed the law and contributed heavily to this economy both in graft and in taxes for EIGHT YEARS!.
Delaying residency and citizenship has nothing to do with job skills. In fact it will repel those who have skills and they will go somewhere else. It will also influence how the Irish are treated in their own country and elsewhere.If there is a system wide mis-reading and mis-application of the law then I think that any one of this country's army of idiotic do gooders and ambulance/publicity chasing scumbag solicitors can take an action on.
I wonder how you logically call solicitors that get no fee for failed immigration cases ambulance chasers. Ambulance chasers would be spending their time on dodgy building contracts and the like if they really wanted to make money.
Praise the "do gooders" in their hard work for making life better for you in spite of your rhetoric against them.Its also possible that they are trying to deal with numbers of bogus people looking to bleed our benefits state dry. Them taking care over every application is a good thing in my view. Unless I am wrong if these people filled in their paperwork and got approved before deciding to force the issue by coming here then they would not be in this situation of having to (shock -horror) wait for their case to be dealt with.
People waiting for LTR and citizenship are not bleeding anyone dry and again THEY ARE PAYING MORE TAX THAN YOU ARE. They cannot claim unemployment benefits.
It takes a few minutes to check a computer for everything. I worked for a company that processes J1 applications. The criteria are much more stringent and yet 1 person could process thousands of applications a month. Again civil servants may be lazy but you can't realistically say that's what is going on.Ireland has taken in a record amount of immigrants /refugees in the shortest time imaginable and put this country through an incredibly rapid change that we are still trying to get accustomed to. This is evident in the fact that our schools for example are simply not able to handle it. In light of the circumstances and in light of a total absence of any evidence I am prepared to give our system the benefit of the doubt.
I've given you plenty of evidence of systematic bias. You are perfectly free to ignore it but it does your argument no good.
Rapid change does not excuse the Irish government for breaking the law and it will end up costing us all in the long and short term.
I see no evidence that Ireland is taking in a record amount of refugees and the immigrants to your country contribute more than they take away.
And you may not like this...but we do have rights.0
Advertisement