Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let's leave this particular case out of the discussion for the moment, and discuss a hypothetical, but similar, case, where an asylum seeker has spent four years exhausting all legal avenues before finally being granted refugee status. You have accepted that, should the courts so find, this person's claim is legitimate.

What if we had capped the amount that could be spent on such a process? In that case, a genuine claim for asylum would have been denied for no other reason than it was costing too much. Is this an acceptable reason to deny someone asylum? At what price does justice become too expensive?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think anyone should be denied access to justice. The question that arises for me from the anecdote is: why can someone who can't afford to bring a lawsuit qualify for legal aid? In other words, rather than addressing inequity by denying justice to more people, wouldn't it be better to make it available to more?

But, let's be pragmatic: what's the maximum amount that should be spent on the attainment of justice for any given asylum seeker? Should it be more or less than the maximum amount that we're prepared to spend on the attainment of justice for a drug-dealing murderer in Limerick?

balanced view

At the outset of this case Pamela lawyers took it on on a "pro bono" basis i.e for the common good. They are not being paid for this case.
The taxpayer is paying for our states refusal to adhere to the undertakings they agreed and signed into law in the form of the Subsidiary Protection Regulations 2006 which Ireland agreed to in 2002. The underlying EU Directive states categorically
"
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Whereas:

.......
(12) The «best interests of the child» should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing this Directive.



(20) It is necessary, when assessing applications from minors for international protection, that Member States should have regard to child-specific forms of persecution.

End quote. -The Irish State is yet again running away from its responsibilities to protect children.

asdasd

The Irish State is yet again running away from its responsibilities to protect children.

The irish State is clearly not responsible, nor capable, of solving the worldwide problem of FGM.

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 o

the more "directives" issued by some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels running rough-shod over Irish democracy and sovereignty the more my vote becomes a more definite NO for lisbon.

These directives should get more coverage. Nice of our European ruling class to "direct" the plebs, and to determine what constitutes a "demos".

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have misrepresented no-one. You said this:

"And yet 31 percent of Ireland's Nigerian population was on the dole at the time of the 2006 census—right at the height of an economic boom."

To which I replied with:

"How many of them were asylum seekers?"

To which you answered:

"Almost all of them."

Are you now saying that perhaps you were mistaken?

donegalfella wrote: »

You're not going to continue to discuss the particulars of the last census because it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that your effort to rationalize the unemployment rate of Nigerian nationals in this country was completely laughable.

Rationalise? How does one rationalise a statistic?

I have already pointed out what could be considered “positives” in the census report on Nigerian nationals, but you prefer to focus on that one single statistic. The truth is that neither of us has any idea why unemployment among Nigerians was so high in 2006, but you assume that they preferred to sponge off the state rather than work. You’re using the data to fit your conclusion about Nigerians, even though the statistics show that those who were unemployed in 2006 were in the minority. I see little point in continuing, particularly as it bears absolutely no relevance to Ms. Izevbekhai.

I believe it was oscarBravo who stated earlier in this thread that if Ms. Izevbekhai was of another nationality, the level of animosity toward her would not be so great and I would be inclined to agree. Your fixation on statistics on Nigerian nationals in Ireland only serves to underline this point.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you want to answer the original question? How much is too much to pay to save someone from inhumane treatment?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'll take that as an admission that you now realise the figure is not accurate.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You provided a website. You may as well have said "Google it". I suggest you read up on the guidelines for the politics forum.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If she is at risk of torture, or even death, she can apply for asylum abroad, if she so wishes.

lego

djpbarry wrote: »

I have already demonstrated that this figure is nonsense and yet you continue to regurgitate it. Even though it is obviously nonsense, you are standing by the assertion that only 1 in every 10,000 asylum applications from Nigerian nationals is successful?

You clearly haven't come to terms with the sheer size of the Nigerian "Irish Born Child" scam. The vast (and I mean vast) number of persons of Nigerian origin residing in the state are residing on the basis of the "Irish Born Child" scam.

Go on, try to find a Nigerian residing in the state on Refugee status. I dare ya. Yes, they exist, but their numbers in Ireland relative to the general Nigerian population in Ireland is negligible (Far less than 1%). Like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Well over 90% of Nigerian nationals residing in Ireland have residency on the basis of an "Irish Born Child" . Ask the GNIB if you are somehow in doubt of this fact.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

asdasd wrote: »

the more "directives" issued by some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels running rough-shod over Irish democracy and sovereignty the more my vote becomes a more definite NO for lisbon.

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the source of a Council Directive before coming out with any more ignorant tripe about unelected bureaucrats.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you think this is a good thing?

There's a slight difference here, in that the justice is not "for" the drug-dealing murderer—it is for his victim(s) and for society as a whole, who will benefit if the murderer is locked up.

Nope. If we pay for legal aid for him, it's for his benefit. If we want to benefit society and save the state money, shouldn't we just lock them up without a trial? The vast majority are guilty, after all.

But I'm going to propose that justice for a given asylum seeker should be limited to one hearing and one appeal. That is as much justice as most people get.

If after one hearing and one appeal, someone gets deported and is promptly murdered - that's OK, because we saved money?

djpbarry

lego wrote: »

You clearly haven't come to terms with the sheer size of the Nigerian "Irish Born Child" scam. The vast (and I mean vast) number of persons of Nigerian origin residing in the state are residing on the basis of the "Irish Born Child" scam.

Go on, try to find a Nigerian residing in the state on Refugee status. I dare ya. Yes, they exist, but their numbers in Ireland relative to the general Nigerian population in Ireland is negligible (Far less than 1%). Like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Well over 90% of Nigerian nationals residing in Ireland have residency on the basis of an "Irish Born Child" . Ask the GNIB if you are somehow in doubt of this fact.

Thanks for all that (totally irrelevant) information.

99.99% of asylum applications made by Nigerian nationals in Ireland are unsuccessful - true or false?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But again, we're down to the distinction between ensuring due process for Irish criminals, while denying it to asylum seekers.

Don't you think that after a hearing and an appeal, the courts would have considered the applicant's rationale quite closely?

I think that everyone should have full access to due process, whether they can afford it or not, and whether they're Nigerian or not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marcsignal

HollyB wrote: »

How many others? As has been pointed out before, Ireland's population is much smaller than Nigeria's, and Nigeria is not the only country to practice FGM, far from it. There is a limit to how many people Ireland could absorb so offering a safe haven to anybody at risk - or claiming to be at risk - of FGM would not be feasible. The problem is that if one family are allowed to stay, how can we refuse the next family in a similar situation? Or the next?

I agree, and what about the other dangers that people on the African Continent are faced with ? Should Ireland also assume responsibility for Africans exposed to other things like Aids, Malaria, Pirates, Tigers, Killer Bees, Tarantulas, Quicksand etc ?

Even if there wasn't a single gun, or FGM implement in Africa, it would still be a harsh and dangerous place to be born, when you consider the climate alone and the potential for drought and famine. That is sadly the way it has always been there.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a valid question. I don't happen to believe that discriminating against Nigerians is a valid answer. I agree that it's costing us too much to process asylum applications, but (as I understand it) of the €300 million figure you keep quoting, only €20 million is legal aid costs. There have to be many ways we can save money besides denying people due process.

oscarBravo

marcsignal wrote: »

I agree, and what about the other dangers that people on the African Continent are faced with ? Should Ireland also assume responsibility for Africans exposed to other things like Aids, Malaria, Pirates, Tigers, Killer Bees, Tarantulas, Quicksand etc ?

Even if there wasn't a single gun, or FGM implement in Africa, it would still be a harsh and dangerous place to be born, when you consider the climate alone and the potential for drought and famine. That is sadly the way it has always been there.

This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, means that there should be no such thing as asylum. Is that your belief?

T runner

Just to repeat a few facts about asylum seekers.

The amount of people seeking asylum in Ireland decreased by 63% between 2002 and 2006.

Returning home in safety and dignity is the solution best preferred by refugees. For Example, the majority of the Kosovars who were given safety in 1999 voluntarily returned home when it was safe.

All asylum seekers in Ireland can appeal a negative first decision, in accordance with due process. Approximately 40% of refugee status recommendations in 2006 were given after asylum-seekers successfully appealed a first decision in their cases.

More info http://www.nccri.ie/

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pretty much. Fortunately, we've moved on from the witch-burning culture. Though there is a difference between burning someone you are not responsible for, and FGMing someone you are responsible for.

First, the act of mutilating a girl's genitals is not a "belief."

Then why do they do it? For the craic of it? They like the sight of blood? Obviously it's a belief. Be it a rite of passage, or some misguided thinking of medical benefit, but they seem to think it's a worthy idea. The trick is to convince them otherwise.

These absolutist goals of "total compliance" and "completely removing the problem" are red herrings. For instance, laws against murder and rape do not completely eliminate those crimes. But is that an argument for abolishing the laws?

The problem there is that murder and rape are already commonly accepted by the vast majority of the populace as wrong. We are nowhere near that level in Nigeria. I am at a loss to think of a single common cultural practice which has ever been suppressed to negligible/tolerable levels by simple banning and enforcement. If Ireland, a compact, modern country with a good communications infrastructure and reasonably effective enforcement mechanism is still having people routinely killed by drunk-driving (a habit which maims and kills others, since you're so fond of that requirement) despite 20 years of campaigning, what chance that Nigeria, a huge, spread-out country with inferior infrastructure and likely inferior police service will be able to have a huge and instantaneous reduction to negligible levels of FGM just by banning it? Just as Ireland is progressing in the drink-driving campaign with improvements over time as today's youth are brought up in the newer culture, you're not going to get improvements in Nigeria except over time.

I put it to you that there will still be thousands of FGMs performed in Nigeria even if illegal and the ban enforced, and that you must come up with a plan to deal with this reality. This suggestion is basically analagous to a policy currently used for heroin addicts of giving them sterile needles. "If you're going to do this damned fool thing, at least don't do it in this damned fool way."

Merriam Webster's defines "effector" as:

And Oxford English has "A person who or thing which brings about an event or result, accomplishes a purpose, etc. Usu. with of"

Why are we even arguing this? The intended meaning of the word should be evident by context, and which dictionary to use is pretty tangential to the discussion.

Stringent laws and harsh penalties, if properly enforced to the fullest extent of the law, will go a long way towards protecting girls from this practice. And as I've said previously, the medical profession should never be involved in carrying out this barbaric procedure.

Some say that the medical profession should never be involved in assisted suicide. Some say they should never be involved in abortion, at least without a threat to the mother's life. Right now, the medical profession is generally not involved with FGM, resulting in it being carried out in unsanitary conditions by unskilled amateurs. How can it get any worse?

NTM

marcsignal

oscarBravo wrote: »

This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, means that there should be no such thing as asylum. Is that your belief?

No, I was using this argument strictly in the context of this case and the fact that some posters think 'mercy' should be the last ditch justification for Pamela Izevbekhais right to stay in Ireland, since all of her other options have been exhausted.

But allow me also, to make a prediction. I believe, between now and Dec 6th, there will be a strong and determined shift of focus from Pamela Izevbekhai herself to her 2 children, by her legal team, and the media to an extent, sidelining her, and presenting her kids as the 'new face' of this case for the European court.

It would be great to be able to protect every vulnerable person in the world, but thats just impossible. My biggest concern here is the potential damage Pamela Izevbekhai is doing, to genuine asylum seekers, a catagory I simply don't believe she fits into.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

balanced view

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Her lawyers said it at the outset of this case (3 years ago) that they were doing it "pro bono". Philip Boucher Hayes asked the question then.

Two Judges (Feeney & Hedigan) came to that conclusion. Two others (Edwards & McKechnie) found the opposite. Justice John Edwards said the Minister's decision not to consider their cases was " irrational, arbitrary and non-transparent."[/COLOR


The asylum seekers receive €19 per week.
The asylum keepers receive a lot more than that.
Who do you think derives the most benefit from the asylum process?

balanced view

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Asylum seekers are not entitled to the dole or rent allowance.
Nor are they allowed to work, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everybody has the right to work.
How can Ireland justify a denial of that very basic human right?

T runner

marcsignal wrote: »

My biggest concern here is the potential damage Pamela Izevbekhai is doing, to genuine asylum seekers, a catagory I simply don't believe she fits into.

Are you implying she is bogus?????

Most of the people in Sligo who Know her believe she is genuine.

Her daughter actually was mutilated.

Anybodys Mother or Sister who is in that woman's position would fight tooth and nail to keep the family in Sligo.

She is entitled by Irish and European Law to fight to become a refugee and have equal status with the rest of the country. Any mother would do exactly the same.

Might that have been because the 2005 Irish-Born Child scheme gave a large number of asylum seekers leave to remain in the country, effectively converting them from asylum seekers to migrants?

Nope its been dwindling every year.

Have a balanced look at some of the sites linked in my previous e-mail particularly the Irish one.

http://www.nccri.ie/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.