Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Permabear · 21-11-2008 3:34pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 21-11-2008 3:35pm

This post has been deleted.

Irlbo · 21-11-2008 3:57pm

And it honestly doesnt bother you that there are people living here less then 2 years and live in a better and bigger house and drive a nice car,and probably work alot less then you,honestly?

Nodin · 21-11-2008 6:27pm

Presumes they all fly in. Also you seem to forget the potential for well organised persecution on the part of the PRC towards family and friends at home.

As far as I understand it, the court in this specific instance states that there is a risk of FGM, but that this can be countered within Nigeria. Therefore its a difference of opinion on how to prevent it, rather than the story being untrue.

So if a large number of Nigerians are claiming Asylum, it would be logical to assume that this prevents them from working.......

Racism may not be correct. We'd have to see how other "black" minorities fair. The level of hostility to specifically Nigerians is clearly evident, and in this thread too. Certainly when I've questioned the 'Free cars for immigrants' and similiar stories, it was usually Nigerians that were mentioned.

I've never heard any, tbh. Romanians (referring to supposed "gypsies") yes but not Poles. Which isn't to say it doesnt exist, but anecdotally, it seems fairly invisible by comparison to feelings against Nigerians.

Nominally. It greatly depends what part they're from, I've found. Its not a homogenous state.

djpbarry · 21-11-2008 8:47pm

You don't think a middle-class professional in Nigeria would have more disposable income than an unemployed person in Ireland?

You can repeat that nonsense all you want - it doesn't make it true.

That comment was not directed at you.

Link?

Nope, sorry. Not working.

Claiming rent allowance does not constitute “welfare abuse”.

You don’t have a case. There are as many Brits claiming rent allowance as there are Nigerians, but nobody makes a fuss over the British claimants. But anyway, the fact that an individual is claiming rent allowance proves nothing.

djpbarry · 21-11-2008 8:54pm

It's also impossible to travel directly from Iran to Ireland. Or Somalia to Ireland. Or Iraq to Ireland. In fact, I reckon that just about every single refugee in this country passed through another country on their way to Ireland. Does it matter? Nope.

I don't know. Fiji?

Can we put a figure on "quite a number"?

I believe I have already made this point.

Evidence?

I'm interested to know how an "upper middle-class Nigerian" can earn more by "scamming" in Ireland than they can in Nigeria, relative to the cost of living?

djpbarry · 21-11-2008 8:55pm

Is that a serious question? Honestly? You're asking me if I'm bothered that some people earn more money than I do?

lego · 22-11-2008 1:01am

You've really hit the nail on the head here. And it does matter, and you know it.

Pretty much all who are not deported are given leave to remain on other grounds, they don't just vanish into thin air (The current fake marriage to EU national scam is becoming a favourite).

Macha · 22-11-2008 10:49am

Can you imagine the public outcry if that were to happen?

Why does it matter? Ireland is obliged to take in a certain number of refugees every year no matter where they're from.

Ireland is actually failing on its international obligations towards refugees as we do not have a formal system of complementary protection.

Proof or unfounded idea that fits into your world view?

O'Morris · 22-11-2008 12:14pm

Are you sure? Do you have a source for that?

Frank Grimes · 22-11-2008 12:20pm

It's probably programme refugees that the poster is referring to.

Macha · 22-11-2008 1:26pm

That's the one. It's like the 0.7% of GDP that the UN asks economically developed countries like Ireland to give towards the Millennium Goals. As a wealthy country, we are expected to do our part-it isn't a one way street.

It would also be worth reminding ourselves that historically Europeans have played a huge role, and still do, in creating the Africa that exists today: encouraging internal tribal divisions, drawing lines in maps, extracting natural resources, slavery. These things still happen today, just not as overtly. Obviously, Ireland itself was another victim of colonialism but other former colonies don't have the good fortune to be part of an organisation like the EU that pumped silly amounts of money their way.

I am in no way placing the blame for certain conflicts only at Europe's door but we would be naive to think we play no role, even simply as consumers of resources that are fought over in civil wars (eg oil in Sudan).

Permabear · 22-11-2008 2:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 22-11-2008 4:46pm

You're still ignoring the possibility of other factors affecting Nigerians that would not affect Poles, such as the ban on Asylum seekers working, the fact that they're non-EU nationals, possible prejudice against their race, and prejudice against their nationality.

See above.

Permabear · 22-11-2008 8:22pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 22-11-2008 8:52pm

You keep on with this "trumped up" business, in a thread where no one has proved this womans claims are "trumped up". In fact the court accepts her claim, but rejects the idea its grounds for asylum.

Unless you can prove categorically that the majority have had their stories discredited, as oppossed to having been rejected, wouldn't it be better to give the rest the benefit of the doubt?

Permabear · 22-11-2008 8:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 22-11-2008 9:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 22-11-2008 9:05pm

Logically, why would a family claiming asylum head to an impoverished country if they could avoid doing so?

Nodin · 22-11-2008 9:10pm

So now you're dragging in stories about some openly fradulent Romanians to a thread about a Nigerian woman whose story hasn't been disputed......Great stuff.

Permabear · 22-11-2008 9:12pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 22-11-2008 9:14pm

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner · 22-11-2008 10:21pm

This is the UK Home Office position regarding FGM

3.10.7 Conclusion. Whilst protection and/or assistance is available from governmental and nongovernmental sources, this is limited. Those who are unable or, owing to fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities, can safely relocate to another part of Nigeria where the family members who are pressurising them to undergo FGM would be
unlikely to be able to trace them. Women in that situation would if they choose to do so, also be able to seek assistance from women’s NGOs in the new location. The grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection is unlikely therefore to be appropriate and such claimsshould be certified as clearly unfounded

In addition her case has yet to be deemed admissable in the European Court of Human Rights

marcus647 · 22-11-2008 11:49pm

ARTICLE 3 ECHR

Judgments
Alleged risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation in case of extradition to Nigeria,

(Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden)

EXPULSION
Alleged risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation in case of extradition to Nigeria: inadmissible.

COLLINS and AKAZIEBIE - Sweden (No 23944/05)
Decision 8.3.2007 [Section III]

The applicants are Nigerian nationals. In 2002, the first applicant entered Sweden and applied for asylum or a residence
permit. She alleged that according to Nigerian tradition, women were forced to undergo female genital mutilation (“FGM”) when they gave birth. As she was pregnant, she was afraid of this inhuman practice. Neither her parents nor her husband, who had supported her, could prevent this since it was such a deep-rooted tradition. She claimed that if she had travelled to another part of Nigeria to give birth to her child, she and her child would have been killed in a religious ceremony. Having decided to flee the country, she paid a smuggler, who took her to Sweden. Some months later, she gave birth to her daughter, the second applicant. The Migration Board rejected the applications for asylum, refugee status or a residence permit, stating, inter alia, that FGM was prohibited by law in Nigeria and that this prohibition was observed in at least six Nigerian states. Thus, if the applicants returned to one of those states it would be unlikely that they would be forced to undergo FGM. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully, maintaining that the practice of FGM persisted despite the law against it and had never been prosecuted or punished.

Inadmissible: It was not in dispute that subjecting a woman to female genital mutilation amounted to ill-treatment contrary
to Article 3. Nor was it in dispute that women in Nigeria had traditionally been subjected to FGM and to some extent still
were. However, several states in Nigeria had prohibited FGM by law, including the state where the applicants came from.
Although there was as yet no federal law against the practice of FGM, the federal government publicly opposed FGM and
campaigns had been conducted at state and community level through the Ministry of Health and NGOs and by media warnings
against the practice. Although there were indications that the FGM rate was higher in the south, including the applicants’
home state, according to the official sources, the FGM rate for the whole country in 2005 amounted to approximately 19%,
a figure that had declined steadily in the past 15 years. Furthermore, while pregnant, the first applicant had not chosen
to go to another state within Nigeria or to a neighbouring country, in which she could still have received help and support
from her own family. Instead she had managed to obtain the necessary practical and financial means to travel to Sweden,
having thus shown a considerable amount of strength and independence. Viewed in this light, it was difficult to see why she
could not protect her daughter from being subjected to FGM, if not in her home state, then at least in one of the other
states in Nigeria where FGM was prohibited by law and/or less widespread. The fact that the applicants’ circumstances in
Nigeria would be less favourable than in Sweden could not be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3.
Moreover, the first applicant had failed to reply to the Court’s specific request to substantiate some of her allegations
and to provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in her submissions. In sum, the applicants had failed to
substantiate that they would face a real and concrete risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation upon returning
to Nigeria: manifestly ill-founded

snubbleste · 23-11-2008 10:35am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5213909.ece

Nodin · 23-11-2008 12:18pm

I'm saying that looking before one leaps is a sensible precaution to take.

Permabear · 23-11-2008 12:28pm

This post has been deleted.

lego · 23-11-2008 3:54pm

She obviously lied, she never went near the netherlands. She had a visa to travel to the UK. Then, like the majority of illegal immigrants to the Republic, she got a taxi from Belfast to Dublin. (The GNIB occasionally check buses and trains, hence the taxi.)

Nodin · 23-11-2008 7:48pm

I'd imagine they are.

O.....

Sorry....

tHERE EXPLOITIN HOUR SYSTIM!!!! SEND THEM BAK!!!! Y can't I HAV A FREE KAR?

Is that better?

KingSitric · 23-11-2008 7:55pm

I have to agree with the majority of sentimnt here that she should be returned HOME to HER OWN country. If she is allowed to stay it will set a dangerous precedent.
Nigeria is touting itself as a leader in modern Africa. With the knowledge and insight she has gained here, into Ireland and Europe she could do a lot of good back in HER OWN country. She could join one of the NGO's over there, maybe an Irish one and campaign for change.
We need to take the lead here in Ireland to turn the mirror around, and focus it on Nigeria. This is where the problem stems.

Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Comments