EL DERECHO A LA REAGRUPACIÓN FAMILIAR TRAS LA ENTRADA EN VIGOR DE LA LEY ORGÁNICA 2/2009

Author(s):  
MARÍA NIEVES ARRESE IRIONDO

El derecho a la reagrupación familiar es una cuestión de plena actualidad, parte integrante de todas las políticas migratorias en las que se le dedica una atención de primer orden, ya que se ha convertido en la principal vía de obtención de una autorización de residencia. La reciente modificación de la Ley Orgánica de Extranjería ha introducido nuevas restricciones al ejercicio de este derecho, aunque la reforma también recoge aspectos positivos. Familia berrelkartzeko eskubidea gaurkotasun handiko gaia da. Immigrazioari buruzko politiketan lehen mailako arreta zuzentzen zaio, egoitza izateko baimena lortzeko bide nagusi bihurtu baita. Orain gutxi burutu den Atzerritartasunari buruzko Lege Organikoaren aldaketak muga berriak sartu dizkio eskubide honen egikaritzari, erreformak alderdi positiboak baditu ere. The right to family reunification is a very important issue nowadays. It forms part of all migratory policies having high priority since it is one of the basic forms of obtaining a residence authhorisation. The recent amendment of Organic Immigration Law 4/2000 has included certain restrictions to this right albeit the reform also contains some positive matters that are examined in this paper.

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy B. Bierbach

Read carefully: A Community national leaves his or her home state (the ‘first country’) to work in a host member state (the ‘second country’). While in the second country, he or she exercises the right to family reunification with a spouse, partner or dependent who is not a national of any EU or EEA member state (a ‘third-country’ national). When the Community national returns to the first country together with the family member, what determines the family member's right of residence in the first country? Community law – in which case the Community national would continue to enjoy the right of family reunification as before? Or the national immigration law of the first country, which could potentially dictate more restrictive conditions for family reunification?


2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Nabila El-Ahmed ◽  
Nadia Abu-Zahra

This article argues that Israel substituted the Palestinian refugees' internationally recognized right of return with a family reunification program during its maneuvering over admission at the United Nations following the creation of the state in May 1948. Israel was granted UN membership in 1949 on the understanding that it would have to comply with legal international requirements to ensure the return of a substantial number of the 750,000 Palestinians dispossessed in the process of establishing the Zionist state, as well as citizenship there as a successor state. However, once the coveted UN membership had been obtained, and armistice agreements signed with neighboring countries, Israel parlayed this commitment into the much vaguer family reunification program, which it proceeded to apply with Kafkaesque absurdity over the next fifty years. As a result, Palestinians made refugees first in 1948, and later in 1967, continue to be deprived of their legally recognized right to return to their homes and their homeland, and the family reunification program remains the unfulfilled promise of the early years of Israeli statehood.


2010 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cecilia Hwang ◽  
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas

AbstractThis article questions the notion that family reunification is the cornerstone of US immigration policies and points to the violation of the right to family reunification in US law. It specifically looks at the forcible separation of legal residents from their families, including foreign domestic workers in the Labor Certification Program; US-born children with undocumented relatives, including parents and siblings; and guest workers. We argue that the growing influence of nationalist politics and big businesses trumps the interests of the family in US immigration policies, resulting in the prolonged and forcible separation of working-class and poor migrant families.


2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-647
Author(s):  
Irwin Cotler

Tant l'article 13 de la Déclaration Universelle des droits de l'homme que l'article 12 du Pacte relatif aux droits civils et politiques consacrent la liberté de circulation dans des termes non équivoques. L'Acte final de la Conférence d'Helsinki contient des références spécifiques à ces deux textes internationaux. Pourtant, le droit à la réunification des familles, corollaire de la liberté de circulation, est cependant perçu en termes différents par l'U.R.S.S. et le Canada, tous deux signataires de cet Acte. À partir d'un cas concret, celui d'Ida Nudel, l'auteur examine la portée de la liberté de circulation et du droit à la réunification des familles en U. R. S. S. ; il jette ensuite un regard critique sur le droit interne canadien et sur la situation des réfugiés dans ce dernier contexte.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document