Muslim Asylum Seeker asks High Court to let in second wife

[imokyrok]

Roman Catholicism has only one interpretation. Protestants are catholic also!!

Thats what I said Corelli. There are countless protestant/ christian sects all with their own interpretation and even within sects there are different interpretations . The Baptist especially come to mind. The RC religion is rigidly interpreted because it has a single defining source which most other religions don't. I'm not sure about scientology. I think it may be similar in its doctrinal dissemination and maybe the LDS? Not sure.

[FutureTaoiseach]

The Supreme Court are bleeding heart liberals? That will be news to the law library. The biggest decision in Irish immigration law, ever, was the Lobe and Osayande case (The Irish Born Child Case) which decided that being born on the island did not entitle your parents to stay by virtue having an Irish Born Child. Hardly liberal. Secondly, the recent case insisting that in cases involving deportation the matter of proportionality should be considered, rather than the usual standard of Judicial Review, is not particularly liberal and will, in effect, prevent no one from being deported. The minister merely has to take proportionality into account in coming to his/her decision to deport.

The SC had a different membership then. John Murray wasn't Chief Justice. I'm talking about 2009+ whereas you are going back to 2003. As for "proportionality", the SC's view of what is proportionate may well differ from the Minister's view. SC Justice Adrian Hardiman has already said publicly that this ruling will effectively mean that every deportation will be challenged in the courts.

[Bi ciuin]

Im getting so fed up with how our country is being used as an oasis for scammers and cons.

Its time to stop all this nonsense and start reforming our laws and throwing out all the scammers who managed to con the system to stay here.

If its not Nigerians having babies to stay its Africans becoming solicitors and admiting they lied and cheated the system.

When will the people of this land have enough?

And then you get bloody Gerry Adams doing all he can to keep them here!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJ87y7BR80"]YouTube- Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein[/ame]

[corelli]

The SC had a different membership then. John Murray wasn't Chief Justice. I'm talking about 2009+ whereas you are going back to 2003. As for "proportionality", the SC's view of what is proportionate may well differ from the Minister's view. SC Justice Adrian Hardiman has already said publicly that this ruling will effectively mean that every deportation will be challenged in the courts.

Hardiman, Fennelly, Murray and Dehnam all sat on the Lobe & Osayance case as well. They all rejected the Lobe & Osayande application, save Fennelly. The only difference is Kearns, who was not on the court at the time.

The L&O case was, additionally, heard by Geoghan and McGuineass, the later now retired, and the former Chief Justice, Ronan Keane.

Your second point totally betrays your understanding Judicial Review. The Supreme Court will not be replacing their view of proportionality for that of the Minister. It is merely a matter that the Minister has to consider. As long as that consideration does not, effectively, fly in the face of logic, they will not alter the decision.

As for Hardimans views, they were not shared by the majority of the Court. Additionally, he has, in my view, a traditional PD, "the world is ending" view of immigration.

By the way, anyone familiar with the Supreme Court would tell you they are the most unadventurous, state friendly lot for decades.

[Catalpa]

Im getting so fed up with how our country is being used as an oasis for scammers and cons.

Its time to stop all this nonsense and start reforming our laws and throwing out all the scammers who managed to con the system to stay here.

If its not Nigerians having babies to stay its Africans becoming solicitors and admiting they lied and cheated the system.

When will the people of this land have enough?

And then you get bloody Gerry Adams doing all he can to keep them here!

YouTube- Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein

Has Adams any idea how many 10s of thousands of votes his Party lost down here thanks to clangers like this?

Probably not...

[Catalpa]

Hardiman, Fennelly, Murray and Dehnam all sat on the Lobe & Osayance case as well. They all rejected the Lobe & Osayande application, save Fennelly. The only difference is Kearns, who was not on the court at the time.

The L&O case was, additionally, heard by Geoghan and McGuineass, the later now retired, and the former Chief Justice, Ronan Keane.

Your second point totally betrays your understanding Judicial Review. The Supreme Court will not be replacing their view of proportionality for that of the Minister. It is merely a matter that the Minister has to consider. As long as that consideration does not, effectively, fly in the face of logic, they will not alter the decision.

As for Hardimans views, they were not shared by the majority of the Court. Additionally, he has, in my view, a traditional PD, "the world is ending" view of immigration.

By the way, anyone familiar with the Supreme Court would tell you they are the most unadventurous, state friendly lot for decades.

As for Hardimans views, they were not shared by the majority of the Court. Additionally, he has, in my view, a traditional PD, "the world is ending" view of immigration.

I think you must mean bogus AS immigration as the PDs were one of the biggest cheerleaders for Mass Immigration from the NAS

- loads of cheap labour for the capitalists to exploit.

[imokyrok]

Has Adams any idea how many 10s of thousands of votes his Party lost down here thanks to clangers like this?

Probably not...

Can you lose what you never had to begin with?

[Catalpa]

Can you lose what you never had to begin with?

No

- but you can lose what you were set to gain....

[Clanrickard]

And you came by this information how?



More ignorance. Multiple wives are quite rare.

Good ol' Nodin! Always reliable to defend the indefensible. Trampas is correct. If this passed (it won't) then you could potentially have men with multiple wives demanding residence and plenty of kids in tow. They will then look for social welfare benefits for the lot of them.

[corelli]

Good ol' Nodin! Always reliable to defend the indefensible. Trampas is correct. If this passed (it won't) then you could potentially have men with multiple wives demanding residence and plenty of kids in tow. They will then look for social welfare benefits for the lot of them.

I can't remember where but some country or other allows such immigration on the basis of the applicants being refused any variety of social welfare for x amount of years into the future.