Immigrant parents claiming citizenship.

caseyann

surefinder wrote: »

I have a child to support (irish citizen) I don't have social welfare... There are jobs available, but, are looking for resident, eu or irish citizen. I cannot apply as I am not resident. this news is the only hope i have for my child future.

How are you living here then and supporting yourself? Also why didnt you think of that before you had a baby here?

surefinder

caseyann wrote: »

How are you living here then and supporting yourself? Also why didnt you think of that before you had a baby here?

my wife worked here, i'm her dependent. i worked for 4.5yrs not enough to apply for residency as they require 5yrs. there are some offers, but, requires residency status as employers nowadays don't want to process work permit.

caseyann

surefinder wrote: »

my wife worked here, i'm her dependent. i worked for 4.5yrs not enough to apply for residency as they require 5yrs. there are some offers, but, requires residency status as employers nowadays don't want to process work permit.

Can i ask you how she can work here and you cant?I mean i would need the whole back ground on this but i wont delve to far.
So you previously got the work permit?
I do know of one of my friends who is from Europe(but no EU) and worked here since 2000.She had to search for those people who would apply for work permits aswell.Not a fun thing to do.
You have to be working for five years? I didnt realize you had to be working here five years to get residency? I thought living here 7 years to apply whether you worked or not.

p.s i like how you replied some other people might have took that as offensive,can tell by way you replied you are a good sort

Can i just tell you my mother is 64 years old and she lives with her partner and paid tax her whole life from age of 14 and is Irish and she is basically entitled to nothing.
Thats Ireland for you.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

How are you living here then and supporting yourself? Also why didnt you think of that before you had a baby here?

Oh, please. Guess what: LIFE HAPPENS. Immigrants do more than just work, you know.

Ireland's immigration 'system' is a joke - it is completely arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the needs of the economy or what is in the best interest of families, and everything to do with the whims of individual immigration officials, all of whom seem to have a slightly different interpretation of the law from the person sitting next to them. Literally EVERY SINGLE PERSON I talked to in the immigration office in Dublin told me something different, even on the same visit. The system is so perverse, as a woman I would be better off getting knocked up by an Irish guy and trying to stay rather than doing things the right way.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Oh, please. Guess what: LIFE HAPPENS. Immigrants do more than just work, you know.

Ireland's immigration 'system' is a joke - it is completely arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the needs of the economy or what is in the best interest of families, and everything to do with the whims of individual immigration officials, all of whom seem to have a slightly different interpretation of the law from the person sitting next to them. Literally EVERY SINGLE PERSON I talked to in the immigration office in Dublin told me something different, even on the same visit. The system is so perverse, as a woman I would be better off getting knocked up by an Irish guy and trying to stay rather than doing things the right way.

Ah right so anyone should be allowed to pop out a baby to claim residency and social welfare or get to be entitled to work in what ever country they want.I see your point of view.

surefinder

my wife is a nurse and have a working visa. i'm her dependent, because of shortage on nurses their spouse were entitled to spousal/working permit if found a job. details are in www.entemp.ie.. my wife pays taxes and so do I when I'm working. I am not entitled to social welfare as my wife salary is above the cut off although it is not enough, better if i work. we're 6years already and can apply for naturaliuzation which will take 26months. on those 26months we will be thight on our finances, hence it is good if I got a residency status to help our household and support our child.

oscarBravo

caseyann wrote: »

Ah right so anyone should be allowed to pop out a baby to claim residency and social welfare or get to be entitled to work in what ever country they want.I see your point of view.

That's as blatant a mis-characterisation of the quoted post as I think I've ever seen.

caseyann

surefinder wrote: »

my wife is a nurse and have a working visa. i'm her dependent, because of shortage on nurses their spouse were entitled to spousal/working permit if found a job. details are in www.entemp.ie.. my wife pays taxes and so do I when I'm working. I am not entitled to social welfare as my wife salary is above the cut off although it is not enough, better if i work. we're 6years already and can apply for naturaliuzation which will take 26months. on those 26months we will be thight on our finances, hence it is good if I got a residency status to help our household and support our child.

I am not questioning you on why you got a work permit,as i said alot of people i know have to find the job who will give them a work permit otherwise they are out.
I hope things work out for yous.It just happens you will have to tighten the belt buckles.I am not sure you have any other options seen as your wife is making as they see it enough.
Are you not entitled to a medical card at least to help with the medical fees or school fees or even rent?

caseyann

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's as blatant a mis-characterisation of the quoted post as I think I've ever seen.

No what southsiderosie did was a complete mis characterization of what i said,and i gave her a reply that equates to exactly what she said.

surefinder

caseyann wrote: »

I am not questioning you on why you got a work permit,as i said alot of people i know have to find the job who will give them a work permit otherwise they are out.
I hope things work out for yous.It just happens you will have to tighten the belt buckles.I am not sure you have any other options seen as your wife is making as they see it enough.
Are you not entitled to a medical card at least to help with the medical fees or school fees or even rent?

i don't know if we're entitled to medical card, but, before we have vivas when i'm still working

old hippy

caseyann wrote: »

i like how you replied some other people might have took that as offensive,can tell by way you replied you are a good sort

Can i just tell you my mother is 64 years old and she lives with her partner and paid tax her whole life from age of 14 and is Irish and she is basically entitled to nothing.
Thats Ireland for you.

Some people are entitled and some aren't. Why should nationality come into it?

caseyann

surefinder wrote: »

i don't know if we're entitled to medical card, but, before we have vivas when i'm still working

Check it out it might help a bit with a baby,its hard with the bills for their medical care or even rent relief to help you with the house.If your baby is older now and going to school,until you get a job you might just be able to get some help there to.:)

caseyann

old hippy wrote: »

Some people are entitled and some aren't. Why should nationality come into it?

How does that come into what i said?

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Ah right so anyone should be allowed to pop out a baby to claim residency and social welfare or get to be entitled to work in what ever country they want.I see your point of view.

No, you clearly don't see my point of view.

What I am saying is that Ireland's system is so ass-backwards that you are better off trying to game the system from outside rather than work within it.

You also seem to be missing the point that if a state gives children citizenship by virtue of them being born there, then it also needs to take into consideration the situation of the parents.

Look at things from the position of the native-born partner. Let's say I am a foreign national who does not have residency. I get pregnant by a citizen of that country. If I don't have the right to work, then I am going back to my home country so I can support my child. How do you think the father would feel about this? In a liberal democracy, you cannot have an immigration laws that are completely separate and distinct from family law. That's what this EU court ruling is trying to rectify.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, you clearly don't see my point of view.

What I am saying is that Ireland's system is so ass-backwards that you are better off trying to game the system from outside rather than work within it.

You also seem to be missing the point that if a state gives children citizenship by virtue of them being born there, then it also needs to take into consideration the situation of the parents.

Look at things from the position of the native-born partner. Let's say I am a foreign national who does not have residency. I get pregnant by a citizen of that country. If I don't have the right to work, then I am going back to my home country so I can support my child. How do you think the father would feel about this? In a liberal democracy, you cannot have an immigration laws that are completely separate and distinct from family law. That's what this EU court ruling is trying to rectify.

Ah i see sorry.It had to be removed didnt it because of people abusing that system of having a baby with someone Irish or what ever nationality and getting residency through the child and partner.
And the father should pay for the girl and child until she is in the country long enough to get residency.
If he is with her and paying for she is hardly going to leave now is she.And they get married she is entitled to certain rights until she is given residency.
With the other thing.If you are working here and paid your taxes for a certain amount of years then yes you should be allowed at least naturalization.
What have you got southsiderosie if you dont mind me asking?

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Ah i see sorry.It had to be removed didnt it because of people abusing that system of having a baby with someone Irish or what ever nationality and getting residency through the child and partner.
And the father should pay for the girl and child until she is in the country long enough to get residency.
If he is with her and paying for she is hardly going to leave now is she.And they get married she is entitled to certain rights until she is given residency.
With the other thing.If you are working here and paid your taxes for a certain amount of years then yes you should be allowed at least naturalization.
What have you got southsiderosie if you dont mind me asking?

I don't have anything. I am back in the US.

I am bi-lingual, I have an advanced degree, and I had my own US-based source of revenue and health insurance. I don't have any kids, I rented an overpriced apartment from an Irish pensioner, and most of my disposable income was spent on drinking and domestic tourism. In short, from the perspective of the Irish government and treasury, on paper I was a net benefit. But I still couldn't get permission to stay, so me and my money went to a different EU country, and eventually back home. Oh well.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't have anything. I am back in the US.

I am bi-lingual, I have an advanced degree, and I had my own US-based source of revenue and health insurance. I don't have any kids, I rented an overpriced apartment from an Irish pensioner, and most of my disposable income was spent on drinking and domestic tourism. In short, from the perspective of the Irish government and treasury, on paper I was a net benefit. But I still couldn't get permission to stay, so me and my money went to a different EU country, and eventually back home. Oh well.

Thats a shame,when genuine workers dont get to stay legit.
The over priced rent i hear you loud and clear.
How long did you wait or apply for it before you gave up?

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Thats a shame,when genuine workers dont get to stay legit.
The over priced rent i hear you loud and clear.
How long did you wait or apply for it before you gave up?

I'd rather not discuss my case on a public message board, but it's besides the point anyway. The issue here is not special treatment for individuals, the issue is having a system in place that is 1) standardized and uniformly applied, rather than arbitrary and 2) consistent with the norms and standards of family law. Ireland's is neither, so perhaps this ruling will be a step in the right direction.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'd rather not discuss my case on a public message board, but it's besides the point anyway. The issue here is not special treatment for individuals, the issue is having a system in place that is 1) standardized and uniformly applied, rather than arbitrary and 2) consistent with the norms and standards of family law. Ireland's is neither, so perhaps this ruling will be a step in the right direction.

Thats fair enough just sorry to hear that you didnt get what you hoped for.
I am sorry should protect the rights of the Irish people first and protect the country from the ones who would abuse the system.
That is the only way around it,and the EU or UN are not anyone i want telling our country what to do.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Thats fair enough just sorry to hear that you didnt get what you hoped for.
I am sorry should protect the rights of the Irish people first and protect the country from the ones who would abuse the system.
That is the only way around it,and the EU or UN are not anyone i want telling our country what to do.

Seeing as how the children in question ARE Irish people, the sad truth in this case seems to be that the EU is more concerned about their rights AS IRISH CITIZENS than the Irish government is.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Seeing as how the children in question ARE Irish people, the sad truth in this case seems to be that the EU is more concerned about their rights AS IRISH CITIZENS than the Irish government is.

Some of them kids arent Irish just because some of their parents came to Ireland had a baby here and some planned it that way.And being born here doesnt make them Irish.Sorry thats how i feel.
And most certainly they can stay majority of them till the child is 18 till through schooling.And if they have contributed to the country tax wise etc.. for a period of years then yes they should be allowed stay.

That would be like saying a guy who gets a Irish girl pregnant and uses her for the baby is entitled to stay here because he is the father of the baby.
I know a few that happened to.

SupaNova

Some of them kids arent Irish just because some of their parents came to Ireland had a baby here and some planned it that way.And being born here doesnt make them Irish

If two people that are not Irish citizens come with the intention of having a baby, to gain citizenship i would not hold too much issue with your point.

That would be like saying a guy who gets a Irish girl pregnant and uses her for the baby is entitled to stay here because he is the father of the baby.
I know a few that happened to.

If someone has a baby with an Irish citizen that's a completely different thing. You are justifying splitting families, because you fear them getting welfare. If you want welfare to be a get back what you put in sort of thing you should be campaigning to have it removed.

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought it was about residency, rather than citizenship?

The judgement will have interesting implications in other EU member states. My Danish brother-in-law lives in Chile with his Chilean wife and their two children - if he decided to move home, she couldn't move with him as she's not an EU citizen. As I read the judgement, that policy is now in conflict with EU law.

If your Danish brother in law wanted to move to Ireland, he could bring his non EU wife and children (the children will probably be Danish too) provided he meets the requirements in Article 7 of Directive 2004/38 EC. (work, self employed, self sufficient) However, if he could not rely on them, maybe the children could invoke Zambrano.

If you mean home as in Denmark, then he would, as traditionally viewed, be at the mercy of Danish Immigration system and they are very strict. Had his wife meet him in Denmark and she was illegal there would be no way she would get status on basis of marriage if a deportation order was in place - but as per metock, if the eu citizen in Denmark was a german the deporation order of the non eu would be irrelevant - hence the term "reverse discrimination. But again, maybe zambrano would work for the children.


With regard to Ireland, Zambrano deals and only deals with EU citizen minor children. It is obvious that a parent could not be dependent on their children and it should be the case that the child is dependent on the parent. But here, like a few cases in Ireland, the parent is a non EU who failed to get legal status on their own accord. Zambrano says the child should be given a chance to live here and as a result, the parents should be allowed to stay. Kind of similar to the old laws on parents being allowed to stay in Ireland because a child is an Irish citizen - see Fajujonu 1990.

The issue with Zambrano was, the child did not even leave the country of his nationality. Traditionally, this was viewed that the EU did not have competence in "internal matters". THe immigration boards consider it reverse discrimination if the state did what Ireland did in Lobe (ie recognise that the parent of a citizen child could be deported) whilst such dealings could not occur to a parent of an eu citizen whilst exercising their rights if the earlier case of Chen 2004 applied.

The key issue in Zambrano is that it relies on the Treaty provision on citizenship, which some would say was an artifical interpretation to get over the fact that the provision refers to being subjected to secondary legislation ie directive 2004/38 EC.

walrusgumble

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah yes residency, I knew it was amended a few years back when they thought refugees were breeding for residency. It's the details of that amendment I was trying to find out but just spotted it here IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004. It is indeed now in conflict with EU law.

Not neccessarily. If one of the child's parents are Irish, then the child is automatically Irish by decent, regardless of the nationality of the other parent or even the place of birth of the child.

Prior to 2004, the law provided that a child born in the 26 counties (expanded to ni via gfa) was a citizen regardless of nationality of parent. this changed in 2004. if a husband and wife non eus came here now, they must. or at least one of them must have lived here legally for 3 years before birth of child before child is a citizen. Time as a student or asylum seeker is not included (funny how according to RAC and RAT stats the numbers for asylum applications fell after 2005)

The significance is that it affects a small number of people whom you (and even me) are not happy about. The children Zambrano effects, already have irish citizenship

no eu law can infringe on the right to dish out citizenship. even belgium ended their automatic citizenship after the advocate general's opinion in Zambrano in October of 2010. Citizenship and residency are two different things. You can not deport a citizen. But these cases that we effectively know about did not under irish law see lobe 2003 said you can deport the parent, which in effect, can result in the citizen minor child leaving the country. What the media and pro immigration groups don't want to tell you is that a majority of the cases before an irish court actually involve the attemtped deportation order of one parent and the decision of the legal parent not wishing to leave ireland in order to remain united. in some cases, that deported parent was not even in Ireland when the child was born or when the mother (single mother) got residency

Zambrano effects Lobe but not who gets citizenship. the restrictions in citizenship will make zambrano not applicable to future cases

walrusgumble

caseyann wrote: »

Of course i know that.
How will it get worse now?

When the non eu parents of the citizens children were granted status, often, though not always under the IBC 05 scheme, (sometimes earlier) a number of conditions were expected to be adhered too

1. Remain an active parent and care for the child
2. Remain economically active (ideally work)
3. Don't commit crime
4. Reside in Ireland with the child on a continous basis

Who are they going to meet point 2 if they are not working due to the economy. Many by now would meet the habitual residence requirement for certain social welfare payments. Some never worked in Ireland in the first place. Even if they don't meet the hr requirement (ie new ones allowed back) they will eventually and they will be entitled to some form of payment and they are hardly going to be allowed to live on the street as there are citizen children involved.

The zambrano judgment does not specify what "dependent" means, obviously it means more than financial but what if the parent can't work through no fault of their own? Will they be allowed in? Something the boys in Strasbourg failed to realise in their utopia judgment.

walrusgumble

donkey balls wrote: »

That aul bint rosemary&residents against racism was on news talk and wanted those parents mainly from Nigeria brought back to Ireland at the tax payers expense,How f**king unreal is that we have Irish&EU citizens that worked here finding them selves either working for a lot less or on the dole through no fault of there own trying to scrap by and that moran plus the imigrant counsel wanting us to pay for flights.

Wonder how far would Rosemary would go to personally finace their returns? Would she mortgage her own house to do it?

walrusgumble

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yes I know that, I think that's where our wires were crossed. I'm not talking about EU Treaty as such. I know what the EU Treaty states. What I'm considering is how it affects The Irish Nationality and Citizenship act 2004 which went so far as to state that even a child born here whose parents were foreign nationals could not claim residency. I'm considering it in the sense that is this the first attack by Europe on our right to legislate as I'm sure that act went to vote by the people.

Our laws on who gets citizenship will not be affected. I predict that non eu citizens will find it harder to naturalise now because of this. Why? Well first they look for then they will look for rights to have non eu grandparents to come over and god knows what.

The citizenship act does not make one reference to residency. At this time there is no legislation on residency rights and its completely at the discretion of the minister , so long as EU law is not applicable. Ie when it affects an Irish person and an adult non eu person living in Ireland (this may change , Zambrano deals with the child only, but who knows what the ecj will do next)

walrusgumble

The Orb wrote: »

No, it applies to the parent of any Irish citizen child, so if an illegal immigrant or failed asylum seeker has a child with an Irish citizen then voila, here's your residency and work permit. Watch the birth rate soar by the end of the year!

I am waiting for the line "they took our wimen........":D;)

You must think the Irish are fierce desparate for a ride.... i kid i kid

One interesting thing though. If they are not married, and assuming the non eu person is the father, and it was a short term relationship and the couple break up, it might not be enough to simply say i am the father. He will have to make sure he is an active father. the mother might refuse access or guardianship (different if they were married) and the father might not pay maintenance. The only way of course for the father to get access and guardianship would be to apply to court. I wonder how a court would deal with the accusation by the Irish parent (if she did not want the father involved) that the father is only doing this, using the child as a means of getting residence and the judge accepts this. Nowadays, the court seems to be reluctant to refuse some form of access to the non married father (unless he is a raving lunatic). Any one remember that supreme court case involving two lesibans and a sperm donor. It was accepted that the child should be entitled to know the father and he was allowed some time to see the child.

walrusgumble

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you’re saying it ain’t to do with Lisbon – it’s to do with Maastricht.

However, the ruling is not that EU citizens are EU citizens, but that immigrants who have children in Ireland are entitled to permanent residence (providing their children remain here). That has nothing to do with EU citizenship, notwithstanding the particulars of the case you are quoting.

Maastricht has been superceeded by Lisbon and renumbered. Still the same provision but new number. Its a new court interpretation. I wonder would the courts of 1992 have shared the same view then?

Either way, check out the Irish Times, Judge Cooke, asylum & immigration judge seems to question whether or not Zambrano is applicable to the cases before him which were started before Lisbon.

walrusgumble

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you’re saying it ain’t to do with Lisbon – it’s to do with Maastricht.

However, the ruling is not that EU citizens are EU citizens, but that immigrants who have children in Ireland are entitled to permanent residence (providing their children remain here). That has nothing to do with EU citizenship, notwithstanding the particulars of the case you are quoting.

That appeared to be the traditional view point, that if eu free movement law was not applicable (as no one moved) then Irish immigration rules could do what it wanted, within limits. This new notion of citizenship and freemovement (ie no need to actually move) has changed since 2005 at the ECJ. Some suggest that this notion was already there via Maastrict. I say that it not correct because the ECJ and member states did not see it that way. This has now changed

The new interpretation via Zambrano is that you not only have directive rights but can invoke the treaty provision itself and eu law as we see germans etc enjoy in ireland can now apply to irish citizens. (as oppose to being at the mercy of irish immigration laws, whilst this only relates to minor children, no doubt it will expand to non eu spouses, remember, metock does not apply to irish people married to non eu people if they live in Ireland. In reality, this zambrano case won't effect to many "Irish Irish people" so as lovely as it sounds its as much use as the tits on a bull to Irish people)

Its a tad bit artifical. Why? the treaty provision on citizenship does not say one has a right of residence, it merely says you are also an eu citizen (which in fairness implies that you have a right to live in europe, anywhere. Lets put it this way, those minor children could never be denied the right to be treated as an irish citizen) the problem however is that the treaty provision also says that the provison is subject to conditions and secondary legislation ie directive 2004/38 EC which only deals with when you actually move to another country and you must be self sufficient/working etc. Zambrano does not even require you to be self sufficient. Whilst the parent of an Irish citizen child will not need to show self sufficiency like the directive or the similar case of Chen and of course the minor irish/eu child can't show this. the adult german /french etc living in Ireland will still have to do this in order to comply with the directive (unless an irish citizen or got permanent residency) in order to have his non eu family here. one wonders which group would potentially be a burden to the system?

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am familiar with Danish immigration laws, and I do know how it applies in the case I cited. That means that I can see that there are a number of implications of this judgement, some of which are critically important to right what are clearly existing wrongs.

Now, if it's so desperately important to you to keep non-EU citizens out of the EU that you're prepared to either split up a family or prevent it from moving home, fair enough. I can't relate to that sort of xenophobia, but I'm sure it makes sense to you.

As you well know, if your brother in law was to rely on Danish Immigration, he might not be able to get the wife over to live in Denmark. He would have a good case as she is not an illegal (i am going by the paralel attitudes of Irish immigration law in this scenerio) but there is no guarantees. But with Eu law,he will automatically be able to help the wife due to the children's own independent rights which can be evoked by eu law.

Its a bit unfair to claim xenophobia. whilst it would rightly help your family, the dogs on the street can't deny that not all families are honest and loopholes have been found by the non eu. I believe its not fair to the national,other eu national or other non eu people (work permit holders) are to be expected to follow procedures whilst the certain non eu gets to side tack and skip normal procedures such as work permits and proper visa applications by making frivolous asylum claims or being an english language student of 7 years (i am now assuming the other parent is ha reckonable residece or is eu/irish as oppose to another non eu student); simply by establishing a "family" after landing or overstaying on their visas. They could be white catholic english or irish (lets pretend that they were required to comply with the same immigration procedure as a non eu) for all i care, it has nothing to do with colour, race, creed. The EU law as you know regulates for the movement of non eu's/ it often can get abused


Why should a hard working but childless non eu work permit holder, who 1 year short of getting permanent residency or being eligible for citizenship (so legal for 4 years), risk loosing his residency if made redundant and unable to get another work permit for a new job; yet a non eu person could come here apply for asylum (i have no qualms with this, they have a right) and it turns out frivlous and within 6 months form a family and get the partner knocked up and now be able to rely on Zambrano? Is this fair?, after all, wasn't the asylum seekers main purpose to seek protection and not start a family. If anyone says i am ****stirring, i directly them to the countless court transcripts for facts of cases on bailii.org and courts.ie

I have no qualms with immigrants, but I expect proper procedures to be respected and adhered to and most do. I would have much prefered if the irish domestic law was looked at as oppose to unjust interference by eu law. you are correct that not all of these cases involve asylum seekers and fear of more floods, but its very hard to change such a view when a vast majority of facts from these reported cases involved such people when you look at the timeline of getting into the country and their claim for asylum and time they created the family right. Hard to be a tad bit cyncial

walrusgumble

oscarBravo wrote: »

They're not. Danish immigration laws are draconian.

yep, far worse than the Irish ones. Although you are at the mercy of Irish ministerial discretion if your brother in law was irish and wanted to live here with wife (children would be irish of course) it would be likely that he would be ok. in denmark, there still would be a battle on one's hands even if proved self sufficiency. But if they meet in Ireland and there was a deportation order, it would be good bye and good luck. Denmark are far worse and really took metock badly.

walrusgumble

old hippy wrote: »

Some people are entitled and some aren't. Why should nationality come into it?

This is because, unless/until the non irish/non eu immigrant in Ireland obtains citizenship or permanent residency they are expected to be economically viable and not to become an unreasonable burden on the state.

Whilst they are entitled to it now, they will often be refused citizenship for claiming certain welfare for 3 years before application/ I don't know about medical cards but it would not help.

marmurr1916

MyKeyG wrote: »

Not sure if this is connected to the Lisbon treaty but I saw on the news recently that Europe have overturned the law that states a parent can not claim Irish citizenship on the basis their child was born here. Can someone remind me of how the original law came about? I seem to recall it was as a result of a national vote or am I dreaming things?

You're dreaming. There's no such law. Parents of children born in Ireland have never been able to claim citizenship for themselves just because their kids were born in Ireland.

Kids born in Ireland were automatically entitled to Irish citizenship until after the referendum of 2004.

Since then, they've only been entitled to claim Irish citizenship if their parents have been resident for at least three out of the previous four years.

Many Irish citizens, mainly children, have parents who are not Irish citizens - generally these children were born before 2004.

In some cases, their non-Irish parents faced deportation.

The Irish Supreme Court previously ruled that the non-Irish parents of Irish citizens could be deported, even though this would in practice mean that their children, citizens of Ireland, would also have to leave Ireland.

This, in practice, created two classes of Irish citizen: Irish children with Irish parents who could stay in Ireland and Irish children with non-Irish parents who were effectively forced out of Ireland.

In other words, the Irish Supreme Court created a form of second-class citizenship for those Irish citizens whose parents were not Irish.

All citizens of EU member states are EU citizens according to EU law - something which the Irish voted for in 1992 when they voted for the Treaty of Maastricht. Under EU law, all EU citizens have the right to reside within the EU.

The EU courts have ruled that deporting the non-EU parents of EU citizens was, in effect, a violation of the right of EU citizens to reside within the EU.

As such, it ruled that the Colombian parents of Belgian children could not be deported from Belgium as to do so would mean, in practice, the deportation of the children. This would have violated their rights, as EU citizens, to reside within the EU.

The court ruling only applies to the parents of children who remain dependent on their parents and only applies when the children live in the state of which they're citizens - eg Irish children living in Ireland, French children living in France etc.

The ruling reinforces the rights of EU citizens to live in the EU - a pretty basic right when you think about it.

marmurr1916

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes - as far as I can see it has to do with the Lisbon Treaty. As the EU Courts gain more control over our laws with successive EU constitutional amending treaties, so much more of this sort of thing we are likely to see.

The rights of EU citizens to reside within the EU were granted by the Treaty of Maastricht which the Irish people voted in favour of in 1992.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although this doesn't technically affect our citizenship laws, for what's its worth it gives ipso facto citizenship by granting open ended residency to any woman (and her partner) who gives birth in this country.

No it does not. The child who is born must be an Irish citizen before the ruling applies. Being born in Ireland does not entitle anyone to automatic citizenship, if the parents are not Irish citizens themselves.

metrovelvet

Maybe the solution is in Ireland doing a better job with protecting its borders.

I find the two tiered citizenship bizarre and stupid.

Anchor babies. Not a new problem.

marmurr1916

caseyann wrote: »

Some of them kids arent Irish just because some of their parents came to Ireland had a baby here and some planned it that way.And being born here doesnt make them Irish.Sorry thats how i feel.

You can feel whatever way you like. The laws of Ireland say differently. Prior to the constitutional changes, children born in Ireland were automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. Since then, children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents can claim Irish citizenship if the parents have lived in Ireland for at least three out of the previous four years.

walrusgumble

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe the solution is in Ireland doing a better job with protecting its borders.

I find the two tiered citizenship bizarre and stupid.

Anchor babies. Not a new problem.

You can't refuse entry to anyone who wishes to apply for asylum. I am sure that you would not suggest doing an Italy or Greece. Would you agree with a detention centre? Its difficult to track down evaders and over stayers if they fail to attend the police station when required. It is also difficult when Irish people are clearly helping them to hide. You can't stop international students who wish to come to Ireland as it brings alot of money in but you can limit their stay and the type of courses they do (no 7 year English language classes from mickey mouse "schools of excellence/private colleges". Its a bit unfair to expect the Gardaí to track down every single one of them when the the right to search premises and arrest people are limited and maybe challenged in court.

The laws since 2004 have changed to an extent that even a German citizen living in Ireland will have to have been here for 3 years in order for their child to be irish, so the baby planters might be picky. They will, i suppose be getting a new found interest in Irish people as oppose to the lativans / lithuanians/polish marriage fame now. Somehow, I don't see it as being as huge a problem.

It was the liberal citizenship laws that were the problem and they had as far back as 1998 to realise it but did nothing. You reap what you sow. Chen said similar to Zambrano but went as far as suggestioning the parent should at least be self sufficient. This is not the case now.

RandomName2

marmurr1916 wrote: »

You're dreaming. There's no such law. Parents of children born in Ireland have never been able to claim citizenship for themselves just because their kids were born in Ireland.

Kids born in Ireland were automatically entitled to Irish citizenship until after the referendum of 2004.

Since then, they've only been entitled to claim Irish citizenship if their parents have been resident for at least three out of the previous four years.

Many Irish citizens, mainly children, have parents who are not Irish citizens - generally these children were born before 2004.

In some cases, their non-Irish parents faced deportation.

The Irish Supreme Court previously ruled that the non-Irish parents of Irish citizens could be deported, even though this would in practice mean that their children, citizens of Ireland, would also have to leave Ireland.

This, in practice, created two classes of Irish citizen: Irish children with Irish parents who could stay in Ireland and Irish children with non-Irish parents who were effectively forced out of Ireland.

In other words, the Irish Supreme Court created a form of second-class citizenship for those Irish citizens whose parents were not Irish.

All citizens of EU member states are EU citizens according to EU law - something which the Irish voted for in 1992 when they voted for the Treaty of Maastricht. Under EU law, all EU citizens have the right to reside within the EU.

The EU courts have ruled that deporting the non-EU parents of EU citizens was, in effect, a violation of the right of EU citizens to reside within the EU.

As such, it ruled that the Colombian parents of Belgian children could not be deported from Belgium as to do so would mean, in practice, the deportation of the children. This would have violated their rights, as EU citizens, to reside within the EU.

The court ruling only applies to the parents of children who remain dependent on their parents and only applies when the children live in the state of which they're citizens - eg Irish children living in Ireland, French children living in France etc.

The ruling reinforces the rights of EU citizens to live in the EU - a pretty basic right when you think about it.

Or you can summarise that by saying the the ECJ (the powers of which were extended under Lisbon) has decided that non-EU parents of Irish children are granted indefinite residence.

Should an Irish citizen gain permanent residence in the United States if they give birth there after being resident for 3 years?

Do note that application for asylum, the appeal process, and the European court appeal process can take a couple of years in itself.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or you can summarise that by saying the the ECJ (the powers of which were extended under Lisbon) has decided that non-EU parents of Irish children are granted indefinite residence.

Yes. The alternative to which is to either deny EU citizens the right to live in the EU, or to separate them from their parents.

Why is this a bad thing again?

marmurr1916

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or you can summarise that by saying the the ECJ (the powers of which were extended under Lisbon)

The Treaty of Lisbon has nothing to do with this. The ECJ based its ruling on provisions that were put into the EU treaties by the Treaty of Maastricht.

RandomName2 wrote: »

has decided that non-EU parents of Irish children are granted indefinite residence.

Should an Irish citizen gain permanent residence in the United States if they give birth there after being resident for 3 years?

That would be up to the US government to decide. US law states that anyone born on US territory is a US citizen. Ireland had similar laws until they were changed after the 2004 referendum.

It's up to the Irish government to decide whether or not to grant citizenship to children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents and what qualifying period of residence, if any, there should be.

There is nothing to stop the Irish government from changing the law so that non-Irish parents must have resided in Ireland for 99 out of the previous 100 years before any children born in Ireland were entitled to claim Irish citizenship.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Do note that application for asylum, the appeal process, and the European court appeal process can take a couple of years in itself.

Noted. Irrelevant.

Only the non-Irish parents of Irish citizen children get the right to stay in Ireland, as long as the children remain dependent on the parents, according to this ECJ judgment.

For a child to become an Irish citizen, the non-Irish parents of a child born in Ireland must not only have resided in Ireland for 3 out of the previous 4 years, but must also have been entitled to reside in Ireland without restriction for that period.

Asylum seekers, unless granted refugee status or indefinite leave to remain (at which point they cease to be asylum seekers), are not entitled to reside in Ireland without restriction.

Periods of residency with restrictions, such as a period of residency as a student or asylum seeker, are not counted towards the 3 years:

(4) A period of residence in the State shall not be reckonable for the purposes of calculating a period of residence under section 6A if—
(a) it is in contravention of section 5(1) of the Act of 2004,
(b) it is in accordance with a permission given to a person under section 4 of the Act of 2004 for the purpose of enabling him or her to engage in a course of education or study in the State, or
(c) it consists of a period during which a person (other than a person who was, during that period, a national of a Member State, an EEA state or the Swiss Confederation) referred to in subsection (2) of section 9 (amended by section 7(c)(i) of the Act of 2003) of the Act of 1996 is entitled to remain in the State in accordance only with the said subsection.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a3804.pdf

What is the "Act of 1996"? It's the Refugee Act, 1996:

‘Act of 1996’ means the Refugee Act 1996

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a3804.pdf

Who is "a person...referred to in subscection (2) of section 9 (amended by section 7(c)(i) of the Act of 2003 of the Act of 1996" and "entitled to remain in the State in accordance only with the said subsection"?

Such a person is:

A person who arrives at the frontiers of the State seeking asylum in the State or seeking the protection of the State against persecution or requesting not to be returned or removed to a particular country or otherwise indicating an unwillingness to leave the State for fear of persecution

In other words, an asylum seeker.

Therefore, the law makes it clear that any period of residency in Ireland spent as an asylum seeker is not counted towards the 3 years that are necessary to allow the Irish-born children of non-Irish parents to gain Irish citizenship.

In summary, this ECJ ruling only applies to the non-EU citizen parents of children who are already Irish citizens.

It only applies when those Irish citizen children are resident in Ireland and while they remain dependent on their parents.

This ECJ ruling does not have any impact on the rules governing who does or doesn't get Irish citizenship - including the rules surrounding children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents.

Those rules are set by the Irish government and will continue to be set by the Irish government.

The rules governing Irish citizenship state that the non-Irish parents of a child born in Ireland must have been resident without restriction for at least 3 out of the 4 years immediately before the child's birth. Only then does the child become eligible for Irish citizenship.

Periods of residency spent as an asylum seeker or as a student do not count towards calculating the period of time a non-Irish person has been resident without restriction.

marmurr1916

The government is to review the cases of non-Irish parents of Irish citizen children:

THE RIGHTS of the non-Irish parents of Irish citizen children to live and work in Ireland are to be examined urgently by the Department of Justice, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has announced.

In a major shift in Government policy following a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Mr Shatter has asked for an examination of all cases before the courts where such parents are fighting deportation, along with a review of cases where deportation is being considered to see if the ECJ ruling might apply. There are about 120 such cases at present before the courts.

The department will also look at cases where the non-Irish parents of Irish children have already been deported to see if they are affected by the ruling, he said.

The ECJ ruling is binding on Ireland and relates to a Colombian family called Zambrano living in Belgium, where the children were Belgian citizens. The court said that the state could not refuse a non-EU national the right to live and work in an EU state where doing so would deprive his or her minor children the enjoyment of their rights as EU citizens.

Mr Shatter told The Irish Times that in most simple cases Irish citizen children were entitled to have both parents live with them in Ireland. “Where there is an intact and real relationship there is very little doubt the child is entitled to both parents living with them in the State,” he said.

But he said the State might refuse residency to non-EU parents of Irish citizen children if they had engaged in serious crime.

“There may be exceptions that will have to be teased out. For example if the non-EU parent of an Irish citizen child is involved in serious criminality – the judgment doesn’t deal with that – we may require further clarification from the ECJ.”

He said parents of Irish citizen children who had been deported could now apply to return to Ireland. “They are in a position where they can communicate with the Department of Justice and their situation will be reviewed. Unless there are exceptional circumstances that entitle the State to refuse them they should be able to come back,” he said.

He said he disagreed with elements of the previous government’s immigration policy.

“We need to reconsider the manner in which issues have been dealt with in the past. We need to deal in a humanitarian and common-sense way with claims but also ensure the system isn’t abused. There are also logjams to be dealt with,” said Mr Shatter.

He said he would bring the Immigration Residence and Protection Bill back to the committee stage in the Dáil. But he would propose substantial amendments to it.

He said a possible approach to this issue was to wait for pending cases to be determined by the Irish courts, and for them to interpret the ECJ ruling. However, the Government had agreed to be proactive and not tie up the courts unnecessarily or ask eligible families to wait longer than necessary.

“This initiative is being taken in the best interests of the welfare of eligible minor Irish citizen children and to ensure that the taxpayer is not exposed to any unnecessary additional legal costs,” he said.

He added that it was important to understand that the judgment applied only where the child is a citizen and had no implications whatever for Irish citizenship law, which remained a matter for the Oireachtas under the Constitution.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0322/1224292776603.html

AlekSmart

Would Mr Shatter`s comments have a certain relevance to the Pamela Izevbekhai case I wonder ?

Although little has been heard of it for some time now,the essential elements would appear to be in place,although there could well be some debate on this apsect of Minister Shatter`s comments....

Mr Shatter told The Irish Times that in most simple cases Irish citizen children were entitled to have both parents live with them in Ireland. “Where there is an intact and real relationship there is very little doubt the child is entitled to both parents living with them in the State,” he said.

But he said the State might refuse residency to non-EU parents of Irish citizen children if they had engaged in serious crime.

“There may be exceptions that will have to be teased out. For example if the non-EU parent of an Irish citizen child is involved in serious criminality – the judgment doesn’t deal with that – we may require further clarification from the ECJ.”

Hmmm,I expect the "Clarification" industry will be one of our major growth areas in the decades to come

RandomName2

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Noted. Irrelevant.

Only the non-Irish parents of Irish citizen children get the right to stay in Ireland, as long as the children remain dependent on the parents, according to this ECJ judgment.

For a child to become an Irish citizen, the non-Irish parents of a child born in Ireland must not only have resided in Ireland for 3 out of the previous 4 years, but must also have been entitled to reside in Ireland without restriction for that period.

Asylum seekers, unless granted refugee status or indefinite leave to remain (at which point they cease to be asylum seekers), are not entitled to reside in Ireland without restriction.

Periods of residency with restrictions, such as a period of residency as a student or asylum seeker, are not counted towards the 3 years:



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a3804.pdf

What is the "Act of 1996"? It's the Refugee Act, 1996:



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a3804.pdf

Who is "a person...referred to in subscection (2) of section 9 (amended by section 7(c)(i) of the Act of 2003 of the Act of 1996" and "entitled to remain in the State in accordance only with the said subsection"?

Such a person is:


In other words, an asylum seeker.

Therefore, the law makes it clear that any period of residency in Ireland spent as an asylum seeker is not counted towards the 3 years that are necessary to allow the Irish-born children of non-Irish parents to gain Irish citizenship.

In summary, this ECJ ruling only applies to the non-EU citizen parents of children who are already Irish citizens.

It only applies when those Irish citizen children are resident in Ireland and while they remain dependent on their parents.

This ECJ ruling does not have any impact on the rules governing who does or doesn't get Irish citizenship - including the rules surrounding children born in Ireland to non-Irish parents.

Those rules are set by the Irish government and will continue to be set by the Irish government.

The rules governing Irish citizenship state that the non-Irish parents of a child born in Ireland must have been resident without restriction for at least 3 out of the 4 years immediately before the child's birth. Only then does the child become eligible for Irish citizenship.

Periods of residency spent as an asylum seeker or as a student do not count towards calculating the period of time a non-Irish person has been resident without restriction.

Well if that's the case, then that's fine; at least for Ireland.

walrusgumble

AlekSmart wrote: »

Would Mr Shatter`s comments have a certain relevance to the Pamela Izevbekhai case I wonder ?

Although little has been heard of it for some time now,the essential elements would appear to be in place,although there could well be some debate on this apsect of Minister Shatter`s comments....



Hmmm,I expect the "Clarification" industry will be one of our major growth areas in the decades to come

What has Pamela Izevbekhai got to do with this? Any of her children Irish Citizens as per Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act? (not enough to simply be born in Ireland) If none of her children are Irish then this is not relevant to her.

The matter really only relates to no more than possibly 200 families, or just 200 people (as in most cases, only one parent is affected / threatened with deportation) Shatter is pretty clear, he is going to comply with the judgment and will probably rather just give them their residence in the quite as oppose to further court cases so that he reduces the costs on the tax payers. "The Clarification" industry will probably be happy with this alright. Decades to come? Hardly. Somehow I don't see an mass interest of non eu's coming and jumping into bed with Irish citizens / or non eu people who are legal in Ireland simply to stay here as their student visas are up and / or their asylum claims failed. But, sure, time will tell

AlekSmart

walrusgumble wrote: »

What has Pamela Izevbekhai got to do with this? Any of her children Irish Citizens as per Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act? (not enough to simply be born in Ireland) If none of her children are Irish then this is not relevant to her.........

. .........Somehow I don't see an mass interest of non eu's coming and jumping into bed with Irish citizens / or non eu people who are legal in Ireland simply to stay here as their student visas are up and / or their asylum claims failed. But, sure, time will tell

Ain`t that the truth

donkey balls

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ain`t that the truth

I have seen a few eastern european girls and Irish girls who have had children with non EU nationals,One of them came out of the dole office today as I walked by as they say watch this space.

old hippy

Lots of Irish over here (London) claiming the dole. And at the same time, complaining about Central Europeans, Nigerians et al. The irony.

metrovelvet

donkey balls wrote: »

I have seen a few eastern european girls and Irish girls who have had children with non EU nationals,One of them came out of the dole office today as I walked by as they say watch this space.

There are also foreign mothers who have had babies with Irish men and cant work here and its causing some problems...where teh child should live...etc..the mom being forced to go back home etc.

walrusgumble

metrovelvet wrote: »

There are also foreign mothers who have had babies with Irish men and cant work here and its causing some problems...where teh child should live...etc..the mom being forced to go back home etc.

what is stoping the child from living here with the father? fathers not capable of rearing children on their own? what jobs are there now anyway?