Legal Bid fails to stop Nigerian family's deportation

Jackie laughlin

Marc,
Let's assume for arguments sake that she cares little for her children and is using them, that seems a very good reason why we should care for them. Home for these kids means Ireland; Nigeria is foreign to them and Italy would be too.

I don't mean to suggest that you have used the word but isn't it depressing to find that there are people who think "do-gooder" is a term of abuse.

walrusgumble

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Marc,
Let's assume for arguments sake that she cares little for her children and is using them, that seems a very good reason why we should care for them. Home for these kids means Ireland; Nigeria is foreign to them and Italy would be too.

the harsh relaity is that the children are only entitled to citizenship of nigeria. great was born in italy yet he cant avail of italian citizenship. further, (no need for the emotionals here when i say this as the law is the law all over europe and law is studied with the head not the heart) but, unless one is a refugee, eea citizen (or spouse) or entitled to work via work permit, no 3rd national immigrant is entitled by right to reside in any eu state.

this family claimed asylum because of problems in nigeria and italy. an independent group assess asylum cases here in this state then send recommendations to minsiter for approval. if no is granted refugee status, in practice, the minster will only refuse it if it conflicts with national health, security or policy.

these independent bodies, in making a decision look to the refugee act 1996, subsidiary protection legislation, geneva convention on refugee, un handbook, various realiable refugee authorities such as james hathway, and country of origin information from realible bodies such as un, amnesty international, uk home office, us state department, world health organisation et all. it found the family not eligible for refugee . note the idea of refugee is confined to a narrow scope on the basis of 5 conventional grounds where they must prove a subjective and objective fear of persecution. the facts of this case have not made it clear whether or not the family were even legally residing in italy via refugee or other means.

further , evidence from the uk home office have made it clear that nigeria is no longer a place where the state persecute and there is no need for nigerians to claim asylum as its possibel to relocate internally and seek effective state protection.

now comes the humanitarian issue. this is done by allowing the family make section 3 leave to remain applications. this was based on the child's illness and evoking article 3 and 8 of the echr. its was refused so they went to the high court for judicial review of the ministers decision

the court looks heavily of case law from other countries refugee decision makers and most notiworthy the european court of human rights in many cases such as D. v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423 and in later cases the Strasbourg court has constantly reiterated that in principle aliens subject to expulsion cannot claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a contracting state in order to benefit from medical, social and other forms of assistance provided by the expelling state.

unfortunately for the family, they face expulsion (one which they were given the oppurtunity to challange but failed) case law in europe has often held that aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State except in exceptional circumstances in the following statement:

walrusgumble

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Marc,
Let's assume for arguments sake that she cares little for her children and is using them, that seems a very good reason why we should care for them. Home for these kids means Ireland; Nigeria is foreign to them and Italy would be too.

I don't mean to suggest that you have used the word but isn't it depressing to find that there are people who think "do-gooder" is a term of abuse.

home is where one either has citizenship or is legal entitled to be in. nigeria is the only citizenship they are entitled to unfortunately. (and no i aint a hypocrite i to believe the ex pats in america living illegally should come home - and bertie does not speak for all of us)

with regard to her time in italy, here husband was legally residing there. he was a writer who got into some trouble by writing unfavourable articles on ex pats who were involved in drugs industry. a refugee decision maker would expect an asylum seeker to report problems to police (which she did but did not get opportunity to allow police invesitage which under un handbook=possibility of refusual) secondly, italy is a big place, she would have been expected to relocate in italy

next, who ever brought her to ireland, should be blamed as she tried to escape problems, had she returned intially to nigeria (safe area - look at coi before doubting she would be not be persecuted for reason she claimed) and make an application for family reunification with her husband in italy.

walshb

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Marc,
Let's assume for arguments sake that she cares little for her children and is using them, that seems a very good reason why we should care for them. Home for these kids means Ireland; Nigeria is foreign to them and Italy would be too.

I don't mean to suggest that you have used the word but isn't it depressing to find that there are people who think "do-gooder" is a term of abuse.

Yes and sometimes the term is abusive. These do gooders are causing more harm than good all over the world. Too busy interfering with peoples lives, lecturing them on how to live, what religion to practice etc etc etc.
Not all do gooders mind you, but some.....Those kids are Nigerian and belong in Nigeria amongst their people. What the hell has Ireland got to do with it. How do you know that Nigeria cannot offer them a good life. Is it just because this is what Mr Brophy and the mother are saying. For years now these sob stories concerning Nigeria and its hardship have proven to be absolute crap. Any old spoof to ensure asylum.....

What do you think Ireland is?, a place for every sob story on the planet?

dent

walshb wrote:

For years now these sob stories concerning Nigeria and its hardship have proven to be absolute crap. Any old spoof to ensure asylum.....

Seems they are quite happy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3157570.stm

Jackie laughlin

I've not said anything at all about Nigeria. I'm aware of the legal case for their deportation. I'm aware that there is a legal definition of "home".

The point I'm making is that these kids know no other home but Ireland and are as Irish as genetically Irish kids. Exiling them was cruel.

opo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I've not said anything at all about Nigeria. I'm aware of the legal case for their deportation. I'm aware that there is a legal definition of "home".

The point I'm making is that these kids know no other home but Ireland and are as Irish as genetically Irish kids. Exiling them was cruel.

No, the point you made was that sending them to Nigeria was child abuse.

Would you say the same if the mother had brought them to Italy of her own accord?

How do you square your logic with any parent that emigrates with their kids for whatever reason, whether they like it or not, whether it is neccessarily a better environment for them, or not?

Jackie laughlin

OK, "cruel" and/or "child abuse". Take your pick.

I'm not being antagonistic but I don't understand the two questions.

opo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

OK, "cruel" and/or "child abuse". Take your pick.

I'm not being antagonistic but I don't understand the two questions.

Then let me make the question as simple as possible.

In your opinion, would it have been "child abuse" had Olivia Ogbonlahor decided to return to Italy or Nigeria (or go anywhere else, other than Ireland) at any stage with her kids?

Jackie laughlin

Opo,
Do I detect antagonism in your post?

Anyone who moves to a country and stays while their children are assimilated into that culture would need a compelling reason to uproot those children and take them into exile. It would be a very cruel thing to do unless staying would be worse.

opo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Opo,
Do I detect antagonism in your post?

I hope not. I am rather indifferent to be quite honest and I don't personalise debates as a rule. I will admit, I am sorely tested by someone who is as flippant about child abuse as you are.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Anyone who moves to a country and stays while their children are assimilated into that culture would need a compelling reason to uproot those children and take them into exile. It would be a very cruel thing to do unless staying would be worse.

But that does not really answer my question which related to this case.

I suspect you do not have an answer or cannot bring yourself to answer although you do at least seem to accept that Agbonlahor was not acting in childerns interest in leaving Italy for another completely foreign country, that would ultimately be compelled to expel her following her hole ridden claim for asylum.

She could have left Italy for Nigeria and avoided all the problems she claims to face now.

I don't recall her mentioning presently or in the past, that she was in any personal danger there.

She did claim in court that her daughter would be subject to FGM, but she seems to have completely forgotten that now.

I dont believe she should be rewarded for her childs misfortune or her own duplicity. I do believe her husband should be expelled from Italy to care for his family and provide a base for the kids, following five years of the Irish taxpayer taking his place.

Tha Gopher

walshb wrote:

Not all do gooders mind you, but some.....Those kids are Nigerian and belong in Nigeria amongst their people. What the hell has Ireland got to do with it. How do you know that Nigeria cannot offer them a good life. Is it just because this is what Mr Brophy and the mother are saying. For years now these sob stories concerning Nigeria and its hardship have proven to be absolute crap. Any old spoof to ensure asylum.....

What do you think Ireland is?, a place for every sob story on the planet?

Indeed. If, say, Pat Kenny, was to complain, or even give a forum on his show for complaints that Nigerians are involved in some mad witch-doctor voodoo whathaveyou schenanigans, RAR would pounce on him in a second. The next day theyd claim a disabled person shouldnt be deported to Nigeria because all those crazy witch doctors out there view them as the spawn of satan and theyd be burned alive

Its a sad case granted, but the fact is the health service has trouble treating the people already here. If we granted this kid an exception, why not the next kid, and the kid after that and so on so on.

Tha Gopher

opo wrote:

No, the point you made was that sending them to Nigeria was child abuse.

Would you say the same if the mother had brought them to Italy of her own accord?

How do you square your logic with any parent that emigrates with their kids for whatever reason, whether they like it or not, whether it is neccessarily a better environment for them, or not?

Thats a good point actually. Im sure there are quite a few kids in Poland with Irish accents by now whos parents stayed here for 3 years. Kids dont like moving, they miss their old mates, old school etc but its a fact of life, I went through it, it happens. When they harp on about the kids being settled here, they somehow make it sound worse than a situation where the parents arrive legally, work for 5 years, put their kids in the local school, and once they have saved an amount that is a small fortune back home they return with the kids. I can understand if the whole thing involved 3am armed raids by the deportation squad, but in the vast majority of cases it isnt how it happens.

Jackie laughlin

Opo,
I am not being flippant about child abuse. For the record, I'm a victim.

I answered your question truthfully. I did not evade. My point focusses on the children.


I don't agree that moving children around between countries is a trifling matter.

walrusgumble

opo wrote:

I hope not. I am rather indifferent to be quite honest and I don't personalise debates as a rule. I will admit, I am sorely tested by someone who is as flippant about child abuse as you are.




But that does not really answer my question which related to this case.

I suspect you do not have an answer or cannot bring yourself to answer although you do at least seem to accept that Agbonlahor was not acting in childerns interest in leaving Italy for another completely foreign country, that would ultimately be compelled to expel her following her hole ridden claim for asylum.

She could have left Italy for Nigeria and avoided all the problems she claims to face now.

I don't recall her mentioning presently or in the past, that she was in any personal danger there.

She did claim in court that her daughter would be subject to FGM, but she seems to have completely forgotten that now.

I dont believe she should be rewarded for her childs misfortune or her own duplicity. I do believe her husband should be expelled from Italy to care for his family and provide a base for the kids, following five years of the Irish taxpayer taking his place.

the reason for that was in judical review the judge dont re evaluate the facts as extensive as the rac and rat. they look at how a decision was made by these groups and the minister. judicial review is not an appeals court.

with regard to why fgm was not mentioned,: because quite simply, there would be no way in hell that even the greatest lawyer could prove that fgm, cult killings, voodoo spells etc occur anymore in light of realiable and independent coi (may of these groups consult with nigerian academics and experts who are living outside nigeria, and many reporters go to the place first hand) fgm is reported to be throughly cleared out and prevented by the cops there. the case of the child's medical condition was a valid and strong point to make in court as it has often been invoked here and in europe.

now the father's case was obviously genuine when granted residence on refugee/humanitarian basis, due to his profession. it would be a violation to refoule him to nigeria under human rights convention if there was a likely hood of him suffering torture or ill human or degrading treatment. it does not say much for the wife who leaves her husband when the crux of the problem was the fact that he was targeted.. but that is a different matter.

good point though, but i think this country should not be so hypocritical in its approach to father's obligations as family law barely gives much rights to unmaried fathers .. but thats a different story.

opo

walrusgumble wrote:

the reason for that was in judical review the judge dont re evaluate the facts as extensive as the rac and rat. they look at how a decision was made by these groups and the minister. judicial review is not an appeals court.

with regard to why fgm was not mentioned,: because quite simply, there would be no way in hell that even the greatest lawyer could prove that fgm, cult killings, voodoo spells etc occur anymore in light of realiable and independent coi (may of these groups consult with nigerian academics and experts who are living outside nigeria, and many reporters go to the place first hand) fgm is reported to be throughly cleared out and prevented by the cops there. the case of the child's medical condition was a valid and strong point to make in court as it has often been invoked here and in europe.

Agreed. My point is that Agbonlahor did not press this as an issue in the media. Even in her soulful post deportation photos from Nigeria, the daughter is completely absent, presunably having served her purpose. This finally proved to me she is a complete liar and lied freely in her application and in the courts:

From one judgement:

http://tinyurl.com/2k2uvy

The basis of the application for asylum related to the alleged threats from the Nigerian ex-patriot community in Italy together with the alleged threat of female genital mutilation to the third named Applicant if the family were to return to Nigeria

On the eve of her deportation, she insisted that she had no family or friends in Nigeria. It is a mystery who was going to perform FGM on her daughter, but as has been pointed out here before, the portrayal of Nigerians as savage and brutal is an article of faith to some.

Just so long as they are in Nigeria. Once here, they are mysteriously transformed into saints.

walrusgumble wrote:

now the father's case was obviously genuine when granted residence on refugee/humanitarian basis, due to his profession. it would be a violation to refoule him to nigeria under human rights convention if there was a likely hood of him suffering torture or ill human or degrading treatment. it does not say much for the wife who leaves her husband when the crux of the problem was the fact that he was targeted.. but that is a different matter..

OK, except he wasn't granted residency or refugee status, he stayed and continued working. And then apparently disappeared.

From another judgement:

http://tinyurl.com/36jevd

On 5th March, 2003 while her husband was on a working assignment in Florence and Rimini she took her children and fled to this State where she applied for refugee status. She has not had recent contact with her husband: she believes that he is in hiding and she is fearful for his safety.

Oddly, one Irish newspaper found him living openly in Turin! Moreover, he had even managed to visit Ireland and return to Italy, This story was verified by none other than Rosanna Flynn of RAR speaking on Newstalk. A woman that would believe and aggressively promote the most blatant lies, thundering racism all the way.

walrusgumble wrote:

good point though, but i think this country should not be so hypocritical in its approach to father's obligations as family law barely gives much rights to unmaried fathers .. but thats a different story.

Agreed. But in this case, I am inclined to believe the husband and wife conspired to manufacture and push this case, grasping every straw they could, even, grotesquely, their own childs intellectual disability.

There are a number of articles that even question that fact and suggest that if he has autism, he is on the lowest end of a very broad spectrum.

Politically correct it may not be to say this, but autism is not the reason she was here, or stayed here or should ever be considered stay here.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe a word out of the mothers mouth and I cannot think of a less deserving individual to be allowed residency in this state.

milmo

I have lived and worked in countries in West Africa for a year and I only comment on that of which I have direct experience. My comments do not extend to asylum seekers from other parts of the world

Before my African experiences I would have held liberal attitudes similar to those expressed in the previous threads. However I am now quiet cynical and take each case on a case by case basis.

I have been to UN refugee camps. People there carry their few possessions on their heads, had no idea where Ireland was and had no concept of how to get here. These were genuine people in need of help, but had neither the money, education, knowledge or capability to come here.

I worked with many educated middle class Africans (from many nations) who had little regard for their less fortunate countrymen and were more concerned with personal status and wealth. Despite their positions in African society most wished to leave and live in Europe for economic reasons. Life at the bottom of the social ladder in Ireland was preferable financially to their affluent life at home.

An EU passport was priceless to them and this desire was driven by personal gain rather than personal safety. They were more than aware of western guilt over colonialism and slavery and had no qualms of playing the race card.

I believe the majority of African asylum seekers to Ireland are economic migrants and not refugees. In my opinion genuine refugees are suffering due to the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants.

It is wrong to that our system takes so long to process cases and this should be changed, though verifying claims is often impossible.

I feel uncomfortable by what I perceive as a positive discrimination towards Africans in some sectors. Africans are unfairly portrayed as victims and some play on this to their own advantage. I don't think I have come across any protests or campaigns to prevent a Chinese/Eastern European/Kurd/Arab person etc from being deported. In my opinion discrimination is discrimination whether it be positive or negative.

If you truely believe in treating people equally then you must also accept that they are capable of human failings and are not beyond exploiting the weaknesses in our system.

I have no doubt that previous posts have been motivated by sincere kindness and humanity, and I genuinely respect your compassion.

However, there has been no proper open debate in Ireland on this issue. The middle ground has remained silent, and the vacuum has been filled with the ignorant extremists on both sides (not accusing anybody here!!).

Overall, immigration has been a good thing for this country but it must be controlled and transparent if we are to really prevent racism taking hold. Repressing unease will only cause it to fester in to something much nastier.

I have been to Africa and seen the good and the bad. My views, are based on my own personal experiences. You don't have to like them but don't dismiss them as racist because they're not fashionable.

IMHO the arguments on behalf of this family are naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Milmo

walrusgumble

milmo wrote:

I have lived and worked in countries in West Africa for a year and I only comment on that of which I have direct experience. My comments do not extend to asylum seekers from other parts of the world

Before my African experiences I would have held liberal attitudes similar to those expressed in the previous threads. However I am now quiet cynical and take each case on a case by case basis.

I have been to UN refugee camps. People there carry their few possessions on their heads, had no idea where Ireland was and had no concept of how to get here. These were genuine people in need of help, but had neither the money, education, knowledge or capability to come here.

I worked with many educated middle class Africans (from many nations) who had little regard for their less fortunate countrymen and were more concerned with personal status and wealth. Despite their positions in African society most wished to leave and live in Europe for economic reasons. Life at the bottom of the social ladder in Ireland was preferable financially to their affluent life at home.

An EU passport was priceless to them and this desire was driven by personal gain rather than personal safety. They were more than aware of western guilt over colonialism and slavery and had no qualms of playing the race card.

I believe the majority of African asylum seekers to Ireland are economic migrants and not refugees. In my opinion genuine refugees are suffering due to the abuse of the asylum process by economic migrants.

It is wrong to that our system takes so long to process cases and this should be changed, though verifying claims is often impossible.

I feel uncomfortable by what I perceive as a positive discrimination towards Africans in some sectors. Africans are unfairly portrayed as victims and some play on this to their own advantage. I don't think I have come across any protests or campaigns to prevent a Chinese/Eastern European/Kurd/Arab person etc from being deported. In my opinion discrimination is discrimination whether it be positive or negative.

If you truely believe in treating people equally then you must also accept that they are capable of human failings and are not beyond exploiting the weaknesses in our system.

I have no doubt that previous posts have been motivated by sincere kindness and humanity, and I genuinely respect your compassion.

However, there has been no proper open debate in Ireland on this issue. The middle ground has remained silent, and the vacuum has been filled with the ignorant extremists on both sides (not accusing anybody here!!).

Overall, immigration has been a good thing for this country but it must be controlled and transparent if we are to really prevent racism taking hold. Repressing unease will only cause it to fester in to something much nastier.

I have been to Africa and seen the good and the bad. My views, are based on my own personal experiences. You don't have to like them but don't dismiss them as racist because they're not fashionable.

IMHO the arguments on behalf of this family are naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Milmo

and that is the reality of these cases from nigeria. fair enough they do suffer hardship and they may suffer from possible death via famine and maybe war, but, if they apply for refugee status, they must have shown that THEY PERSONALY suffered persecution on basis of 5 convnetional grounds by the state (or NGO's where state wont intervene) economic reasons are not enough, or the fact that even a sibling has suffered. the other reality is, that they could easily go to another african country and enter the refugee camps there, at least they are safe from persecution. i find it very very hard to believe they dont not even try and invent a coherent, plausible and credible story whilst on the planes and boats on their way over. it does not help them one bit that they fail to produce evidence of how they got here (eg passport,plane tickets etc - these leads to their stories been not believed then striking concerns over the rest of their story. ,many claim that with fake passports (ok they are easy to get in those areas) or alternatively they never had them - the agent showed the immigration officer and still go through the airports without bother very very very hard to believe. you can not imagine how many claim to be sons/daughters of local chiefs/royalty or alternatively young teenagers been forced into cults to replace their fathers at an early age (normally these groups are elder people and rich)

in reference to your comment about the middle class , hence one of the reasons for serious corruption in politics and police in those areas.they wish for power and bribes.. but alas not enough for persecution

your views, (for the people who do not agree, like or not) are supported by coi.

just to ensure that i dont get accussed of racism - my stance is that we have an obligation under refugee law to allow asylum seekers into the country and hear their case in a fair manner in light of law , unless dublin convention applies (an piece that needs to be amended unless eu comply all new states like slovakia to improve their human rights and compliance with these laws) . that is fair. the law is there to protect the state from abuse. but the reality is, in practice there is not enough funds and resources at the I.N.IS (section in the department) and RAT & RAC (independent decision makers) to ensure the decision making process (including potential judicial review and applications under section 3 of immigration act 1999 for humanitiarian basis) is not done in a timely manner of no less than 1 year, like places in germany. it is not fair on asylum seekers (and other nationals in areas such as applications for naturalisation etc) to be waiting for over 2-3 years for their decision

walrusgumble

However, there has been no proper open debate in Ireland on this issue. The middle ground has remained silent, and the vacuum has been filled with the ignorant extremists on both sides (not accusing anybody here!!).


Milmo[/QUOTE]

if you are referring to the asylum claims - one of the reasons for this is that decisions made by RAT and RAC are not made public, the cases are in camera the same as in family law and that should always be the case - as their are very sensitive facts been assessed and there may always be some genuine cases.

the problem with this though is that the middle ground stay silent becasue as you said every case should be looked at case by case, and there maybe possible inconsistencies in ruling - hence judical review (some decisions are badly made and do not comply wth rules - success by the way means they get a rehearing at RAT)

middle men cant speak out becasue all they will know is the statistics published by the department each year (refugee grants have dramitically lowered in recent time so has applications) no point making a comment one such issues if they dont know the case details
. this is changing slightly,... lawyers can now apply so assess previous judgements made by the rat.. difficult though, and in family law there are now reports complied by carol coulter (orignally irish times or indo forget) from courts service.

as stated above, and michael mcdowell stupidly made an idiot in may by opening his gob in a degoratory fashion... all countries are crequired to comply with geneva convention on refugees and not refuse an asylum seeker into the country or to refoule him or her if there is a reasonable likihood of suffering serious harm / torture if repatriated.

dodgyme

Well they are at it again with this case in the paper again. I have to say I completely agreee with milmo. I spent various stints working in Lagos and found that its all a scam with the middle class nigerian chancers just trying to scam their way into Ireland because alot of their friends had done the same. Only people who have been to Nigeria actually know this, only people who have been to Nigeria understand the mentality. As a result my attitiude towards Nigeria is very different to my attitiude to southern africa where I also worked. In Southern africa the populations are poor, beyond belief but in Lagos the corruption and greed of the middle classes, the same middle classes that annoy you from day to day on how to get into ireland and can your company provide letters of invitation etc etc. If you visited some of the hotels when I was there and the scams were at there height, it wasnt unusual to hear the asylum scams being organised in the lobby within ear shot. These people didnt look too persecuted to me.

marcsignal

milmo wrote:

However, there has been no proper open debate in Ireland on this issue. The middle ground has remained silent, and the vacuum has been filled with the ignorant extremists on both sides.

absolutely right IMO

milmo wrote:

Overall, immigration has been a good thing for this country but it must be controlled and transparent if we are to really prevent racism taking hold. Repressing unease will only cause it to fester in to something much nastier.

also absolutely right IMO, we have been very lucky in Ireland that we havn't had to deal with extreme right wing groups, as in England and continental Europe. These groups feed directly off any perception of repressing unease, by claiming it's an attempt to stifle ones right to free speech. A dangerous predicament.

marcsignal

Jackie,
Apologies for the late reply to your point re:'do-gooders' being used as a term of abuse. Yes I agree this development is a little disheartening/depressing, however I do feel some 'do-gooders' have alterior motives, and their own self righteous public image at heart, as opposed to the person/people they claim to represent. In short, in many cases they are their own ego trip.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Opo,
I am not being flippant about child abuse. For the record, I'm a victim.

I am genuinely sorry to learn you have had such experiences, and can now understand why you feel so strongly about the kids in this case.
However I can't see any way we, or rather,the Irish immigration dept. could have practially/realistically intervened on this basis, other than that I don't know what else I can say ?

clonycavanman

The rights of the Irish people in this context are rarely considered. We have a right to choose our own immigration policy. This is one of the priviledges we won for ourselves when, in an utterly selfish manner, by morally contentious means, over several decades, assisted by no-one else, we took our own independence from the tenacious and unwilling. (We have not always prioritised being liked).

'The Irish have emigrated all over the world....'
The counter: The Irish who did not , and stayed through all the poverty and hardship, should not be penalised.

'Nemesis of empire; we took their farmland...and they occupied our cities.'
Well, Ireland never had that empire.

Exceptions for 'hard and difficult cases'.... are injust to the others.

The moral obligation to provide asylum/shelter to the persecuted, is not an obligation to confer citizenship. Three years residency and get citzenship! This introduces a confounding motivation into claims for asylum, (which are costing us all heavily in legal aid) and an incentive encouraging multinationals to recruit immigrants on low pay; 'bread today and jam tomorrow'. In Canada it is three years to 'landed immigrant' status. Are we competing with Canada to intice new citizens?

The issues of migration will not go away. The last ten years is not a blip. Some countries have placed an obligation on legislators to consider future generations. We should too. They should know something of the demographic context in which future policy will operate. Between 2007 and 2050 the populations of Latin America and Asia will rise by 41 and 33 %. But that is not where the emigration pressures will really come from.
The population of Africa will increase by 116%. By 2050 the population of Uganda will be 130 million-larger than the current population of Russia or Japan, on a fraction of the resources. In 2050 Nigeria will have the fourth largest population in the world (299 million). (Source is US-based Population Reference Bureau.)

A couple of months ago Poland (sic) concluded a guest-worker agreement with India! Yes, Poland has already dried up as a source of cheap, compliant workers. A guest-worker agreement, in a robust legal context where it is not abused, is a way of spreading the economic benefits of work abroad around a larger number of individuals than merely those in the middle-class with dubious asylum claims.

dodgyme

clonycavanman wrote:

The rights of the Irish people in this context are rarely considered. We have a right to choose our own immigration policy. This is one of the priviledges we won for ourselves when, in an utterly selfish manner, by morally contentious means, over several decades, assisted by no-one else, we took our own independence from the tenacious and unwilling. (We have not always prioritised being liked).

'The Irish have emigrated all over the world....'
The counter: The Irish who did not , and stayed through all the poverty and hardship, should not be penalised.

'Nemesis of empire; we took their farmland...and they occupied our cities.'
Well, Ireland never had that empire.

Exceptions for 'hard and difficult cases'.... are injust to the others.

The moral obligation to provide asylum/shelter to the persecuted, is not an obligation to confer citizenship. Three years residency and get citzenship! This introduces a confounding motivation into claims for asylum, (which are costing us all heavily in legal aid) and an incentive encouraging multinationals to recruit immigrants on low pay; 'bread today and jam tomorrow'. In Canada it is three years to 'landed immigrant' status. Are we competing with Canada to intice new citizens?

The issues of migration will not go away. The last ten years is not a blip. Some countries have placed an obligation on legislators to consider future generations. We should too. They should know something of the demographic context in which future policy will operate. Between 2007 and 2050 the populations of Latin America and Asia will rise by 41 and 33 %. But that is not where the emigration pressures will really come from.
The population of Africa will increase by 116%. By 2050 the population of Uganda will be 130 million-larger than the current population of Russia or Japan, on a fraction of the resources. In 2050 Nigeria will have the fourth largest population in the world (299 million). (Source is US-based Population Reference Bureau.)

A couple of months ago Poland (sic) concluded a guest-worker agreement with India! Yes, Poland has already dried up as a source of cheap, compliant workers. A guest-worker agreement, in a robust legal context where it is not abused, is a way of spreading the economic benefits of work abroad around a larger number of individuals than merely those in the middle-class with dubious asylum claims.

All good and fair point. This is the kinda middle ground common sense so absent from the "chip on the shoulder" broadsheets in this debate.

Zambia

I lived in africa for 14 years as the child of two Irish parents. My nationality never changed and could not change to the country of residence.

This case is a scam, it should have stayed in Italy.

marcsignal

thanks to ALL who contributed to this thread, chat to you all again in the future, and I wish you all everything you would wish for yourselves...




:-)

liberty 2007

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I've a great deal of time for law and order and I wish more of our laws were enforced.

I've cosidered the possibility that the mother and indeed the father might be chancers but I'm talking about the kids.

There are some above who seem to find my attitude to nationality incomprehensible. I'll try again: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is very likely a duck. Now, if a kid has been here for a few years, gone to school here, settled in, has friends, considers Ireland home, then he or she is effectively Irish.

Let me go further. If a kid comes here, integrates as I've described and learns to speak Irish, then I would consider that child more Irish than an adult born in Ireland who wouldn't bother their arse to learn the language. Ther's a lot more to being Irish than genetics and place of birth.

A friend of mine was married to a French guy who unfortunately died. She makes a point of rearing her kids to have two nationalities and she's right. Incidentally, her 3 kids speak English, French and Irish. One is writing a Masters thesis on Anglo Irish literature.

Kids grow up, if they were part of a very small nigerians population here, perhaps they could consider themselves Irish. I dont believe that would be the case.

HollyB

Whatever became of this case? Wasn't there an appeal scheduled for October?

marcsignal

HollyB wrote: »

Whatever became of this case? Wasn't there an appeal scheduled for October?

Good Question HollyB, I've been away myself, but I'm sure we would have heard something ? Will dig around and see.

HollyB

marcsignal wrote: »

Good Question HollyB, I've been away myself, but I'm sure we would have heard something ? Will dig around and see.

If it was to be in October, there would surely have been some mention of it in the news, protests on the family's behalf, etc. I saw a couple of articles on display not too long ago, but they were about trouble adjusting to Nigeria, etc, not about any further legal developments.

I wonder if the appeal ever happened. If they had been denied asylum, and the file had been gone through by two ministers and options exhaustively explored, what could possibly have been left as grounds for appeal?

I would have thought that, logically, only a small minority of cases would have grounds for appeal, if proper procedure wasn't followed, or similar.