Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you any character witnesses from before 2005? The only ones I know of (and people I know and trust) say she is a very genuine person and fears for her family.

There are many reasons why someone in a desperate situation might lie about their movements in Europe. I have lied before without any mitigation or without being backed against the wall of desperation. Have you?

But we dont actually know she lied. And you conclude that this means she is not genuine but bogus in this case? Tell me exactly how this shows that please, back up your arguments.

"Being fearful doesnt necessarily mean there is danger."
But it does mean she believes there is danger i.e not bogus.
You should have probably said "being fearful does not necessarily mean there is sufficient danger". There is danger obviously: one of her daughters has already been mutilated and this practice is still carried out.

Your statement implies that you accept she genuinely fears returning to Nigeria. Whether there is sufficient danger or not being a different matter as you implied?
If you feel she is not bogus, but genuine but in your opinion her case does not warrant refugee status then you be genuine and say this.

If you still insist she is not genuine and cant show this then it is plain that your personalisation of this argument against her along with your ridiculous singling out and attack on the Nigerian people are evidence of underlying racism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

My girlfriend genuinely fears spiders. She will run screaming if she sees one. But that doesn't mean that spiders can do her any harm.

Imeldas fear is of Male violence in the form of Genital mutilation. This can do her daughters harm.

As for your reintroduction of the "racism" label—that is a form of ad hominem attack.

I referred to your groundless arguments against Pamela Izevbekhai and Nigerians. See below.

We're not debating whether she is genuine. We're arguing whether her case gives her genuine grounds for asylum.

I will use your own quotes from this thread to prove my points.

Against Nigerians:

1. Have you read this article from yesterday's Independent? Have you noticed the repeated recurrence of one particular nationality?
2. At the time when the state is running a massive budget deficit, when unemployment is rising, and when our government is eliminating what many people regard as essential services, you want to maintain this system—because to do otherwise is to deny poor opportunistic Nigerians their "legal rights."
3. Can't you understand that people are annoyed at Nigerians not because of their nationality or their race, but because of how they behave in our country?
4. Nigerians have engaged in outrageous abuse of our country's pre-2004 citizenship laws, our welfare system, and our courts
5. My point about Nigerians in general is that they have filed a great many bogus asylum cases in the Irish courts over the last fifteen years, costing the Irish taxpayer millions of euros in legal aid each year.
6. I think there's quite a bit of anti-Polish prejudice out there, don't you? And yet 84 percent of working-age Poles somehow manage to find employment. But not the Nigerians—who come from a country where English is the first language, mind you.
7. if Izevbekhai's fellow nationals were not engaged in widespread efforts to scam the Irish courts, her case might not have provoked such outcry. For that, however, she has only her countrymen and -women to blame.
8. "Racism"? "Xenophobia"? I think not.

Against Pamela Izevbekhai's character:

My point about Ms. Pamela Izevbekhai in particular is that she has led the immigration authorities, the courts, and the taxpayers of this country on a merry dance for almost four years. Her incoherent story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

She claims that she and her husband were very wealthy in Nigeria. But of course she will be leaving her endless legal bills for us to pick up.

In fact, she was so terrified after her daughter died in 1994 that she fled Nigeria after only ten—

a) minutes
b) days
c) weeks
d) months
e) years

Thanks for playing, boys and girls; the correct answer is ten years.

Izevbekhai clearly intends to keep the appeals and judicial reviews going until her daughters are Leaving Cert students, and then cite Eluhanla v. McDowell as precedent.

One of the Stats that didnt suit you:

Quote:
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?

(Donegalfella) Oh, for goodness' sake. Nobody has a "right" to work anywhere in the world they want to.

I agree with Oscar Bravos observation about the disturbing amount of Xenophobia undercurrenet in Ireland. Might PM one or two people from this thread to see if there is anything practical we can do to educate, help out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Even when they condradict each other????

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

I will use your own quotes from this thread to prove my points.

None of those quotes were wah-wah-wah-wahist. He pointed out statistical facts related to the abuse of our system by certain groups. that would be "racist" only if untrue. Something is not racist just because you say it is, nor untrue unless you prove it false, and is not proven untrue just by shouting racism.

about the disturbing amount of Xenophobia

There is a disturbing amount of the use of the term Xenophobia by people who want to end debate on this thread, and in Ireland in general. Democracy is not just about free speech for those who shout "xenphobia" but for everyone.

if there is anything practical we can do to educate

hilarious. The typical thought control mind of the leftist. We need to be "educated" to your view, against the actual facts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bébhinn91

This situation is unfortunate but she entered the country illegally therefore she should be deported. A crime is a crime regardless of FGM

oscarBravo

asdasd wrote: »

He pointed out statistical facts related to the abuse of our system by certain groups.

The system isn't being abused by groups; it's being abused by people. If you target someone because they are a member of a group, and because other members of that group have done something wrong, you're guilty of - at best - a logical fallacy.

There is a disturbing amount of the use of the term Xenophobia by people who want to end debate on this thread, and in Ireland in general. Democracy is not just about free speech for those who shout "xenphobia" but for everyone.

Democracy isn't about free speech at all.

That aside: is it your contention that xenophobia and racism don't exist? If not, why do you throw a strop every time someone mentions the words? If you think an accusation of xenophobia or racism is unfounded, refute it - don't stamp your feet at the fact that the accusation was made.

T runner

asdasd wrote: »

He pointed out statistical facts related to the abuse of our system by certain groups.

The certain group was "Nigerians in general".

More statistical facts:

But if we can't spend €9.7 million a year to protect girls in this country from cervical cancer, why are we spending €300 million a year to entertain an endless parade of bogus asylum tourists

The implication of relating these statistical facts is that the amount of money we spend on people seeking Asylum somehow is responsible for young girls not being protected from Cervical Cancer. Deliberately misleading.

Also total amount spent per year on asylum seekers is €300 million and "why are we spending €300 million a year to entertain an endless parade of bogus asylum tourists." Only Conclusion possible from stats:- All Asylum Seeker are bogus Asylum Tourists.

There is a disturbing amount of the use of the term Xenophobia by people who want to end debate on this thread, and in Ireland in general. Democracy is not just about free speech for those who shout "xenphobia" but for everyone.

Many different forms of democracies I guess.
The ability for people to defend another group/race of people from verbal/written or physical attacks is an important part of democracy I would have thought.

4. Nigerians have engaged in outrageous abuse of our country's pre-2004 citizenship laws, our welfare system, and our courts
5. My point about Nigerians in general is that they have filed a great many bogus asylum cases in the Irish courts over the last fifteen years, costing the Irish taxpayer millions of euros in legal aid each year.

"Nigerians" or "Nigerians in general" havent engaged in any of this.
Most Nigerians have never been to Ireland.

These are the type of "facts" that need to be challenged.

You can think what you like Donegal, but if your posts attack a race of people "in general" do not expect no challenge in a democracy.

lottodrink

Deport her and stick the kids up for adoption in Ireland;)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What djpbarry said earlier: our social welfare system seriously needs to be tightened up.

You've made the case that Nigerians as a group are not perpetrating welfare fraud; individuals are responsible for these fraudulent claims. So would you say that the reporter's decision to mention the nationalities of the culprits is illegitimate? Might you even say that the article is inexcusably racist for inviting the public to assume that almost all of the swindlers and cheats identified by Operation Gull are Nigerian? Or would you argue that the preponderance of Nigerians mentioned therein is purely coincidental? After all, if national groupings do not matter, those who engage in welfare fraud should be evenly distributed throughout the population, with no correlation to nationality or race, yes?

I'm not suggesting that there is no correlation. I'm pointing out that to pre-judge an individual member of a race, based on the actions of some other members of that race, is racist.

Would you therefore oppose the logic of race-based affirmative action, as used in American college admissions procedures?

I don't see the parallel, to be honest.

donegalfella wrote: »

The question posed was this: In a recessionary economy, when the government tell us that we cannot afford €10 million to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer, and when we are cutting back on 400 teachers in our primary and secondary schools to save €96 million, can we afford an asylum system that costs €300 million a year?

Assuming the answer is "no", does that meant that the logical answer must be to deny legal aid to asylum seekers, given that legal aid accounts for less than 7% of that total cost?

The idea of a "written attack" is both an oxymoron and a logical fallacy...

You don't think there should be libel laws?

Vigorous, vibrant debate is the heart and soul of democracy—so don't expect that you can shut people down by chanting "racism" and "xenophobia."

I agree. But when a charge of racism or xenophobia is levelled, wouldn't you agree that it's better to defend against that charge, rather than claim the debate is over because the accusation was made?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't suggest such a correlation. I accepted the possibility that, of the fraudsters discovered, a disproportionate number were Nigerian. But I still reject the validity of using that statistic to discriminate against an individual Nigerian.

Yes, but I have been accused of being a racist because I have pointed out that Nigerian nationals in this country have a statistically disproportionate tendency to be unemployed, to be on welfare, and so on. Do you think that's racist?

I don't think it's possible for quoting facts to be racist. It's possible for the interpretation of facts to be inspired by racism, and it's certainly possible that facts can encourage racism.

The parallel is that if a white applicant and a black applicant are competing for the same place in college, affirmative action dictates that the place should go to the black applicant, on the basis of redressing historical injustices. While the white applicant as an individual may never have engaged in any discriminatory actions, he is identified as a member of a group that has done so, and is punished for being a member of that group. Correspondingly, the black applicant as an individual may never have experienced discrimination—but he is identified as a member of a group that has historically been discriminated against, and is favoured because of that.

Hm. I guess I can see the parallel. I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea of affirmative action, to be honest.

Well, legal aid to asylum seekers only covers part of the legal proceedings. For example, the state also has to pay solicitors and barristers to represent itself in these cases; and there are other costs to the state involved, too. When a case—such as Izebekhai's—goes to the High Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and potentially even the Supreme Court in Ireland, you're talking serious money. Also, when cases are dragged out for a long time—and these cases often take years to resolve—the applicant(s) also have to stay in the country for quite some time, at the state's expense. It all adds up. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the whole €300 million budget, so taxpayers can know where the money is actually going.

Actually, my understanding is that €20m is the portion of the €300m allocated to legal costs, not just legal aid. But yes, I'd definitely be interested in seeing a breakdown.

I do, but I don't think there should be laws against "hate speech," for example, since those can become slippery slopes towards banning anything that anyone finds offensive. In a free country, you simply don't have the right not to be offended.

It's a question of principle versus effect. Sure, in principle "free speech" means that you can say what you want, however offensive. But take the case of Brazil, one of the last countries to ban slavery: in order to heal the wounds of the past as quickly as possible, racist speech is a serious criminal offence there. As a result, it quickly becomes a social taboo, and largely dies out. There isn't so much clear division between races in Brazil; there is a spectrum of skin colour and features. And I don't think that anyone will argue that the result is some of the most attractive women to be found anywhere in the world.

I hope I haven't claimed that the debate is over! I have admittedly found myself in the position several times of defending myself against the charge that I am a racist or a xenophobe. But I'm not trying to end the debate there, by any means.

It wasn't aimed at you, but there are those who will cry "you called him a racist! The debate is over!"

Which is ironic, really.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would be inclined to describe it as defensibly irrational.

It's similar to the gut-reaction policy of banning the bringing of small pointy objects and beverages onto aircraft: it's not only the wrong thing to do, it's positively harmful to overall security, by focussing on the minutiae of specific perceived threats rather than dealing with the terrorists themselves.

Were you wrong to be wary of young black men? In theory, yes. In practice, no. It also depends on how your wariness manifests: if you brace yourself to run, should the need arise: fair enough. If you pull a gun on any black man who approaches you: not good.

Similarly, if the reaction to some Nigerians scamming our social welfare system is to make it more difficult for genuine Nigerian asylum seekers to get the help we need, that's a mistake. If the reaction is to make the process quicker, fairer and more transparent: everyone benefits. Except the scammers, and that's OK by me.

T runner

From Donegallad:

4. Nigerians have engaged in outrageous abuse of our country's pre-2004 citizenship laws, our welfare system, and our courts
5. My point about Nigerians in general is that they have filed a great many bogus asylum cases in the Irish courts over the last fifteen years, costing the Irish taxpayer millions of euros in legal aid each year.

Ill say it again:

"Nigerians" or "Nigerians in general" havent engaged in any of this.
Most Nigerians have never been to Ireland

You are from Donegal presumably so I will give you an example a little closer to home. Most of the people involved in Paramilitary attacks in Ireland and Britain are Irish (of whatever persuasion.)

How does this sound.

1. Irish people have engaged in outrageous terrorist attacks in Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. Irish people in general have been responsible for a great many terrorist attacks in Britain costing the British Taxpayer millions of pounds.

Are these statements acceptable? No, I think they are racist.

Please explain why you attribute the actions of a minority of Nigerians (a few thousand out of 148 million) to "Nigerians in general"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

balanced view

donegalfella wrote: »

. It all adds up. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the whole €300 million budget, so taxpayers can know where the money is actually going.

The vast majority of this money goes to the asylum keepers (Irish) and their suppliers (Irish).
Don't ya see it's a big money making racket for certain Irish people with strong political connections who run these asylum centres?
If they allowed these people to work and find their own lodgings it would save a small fortune.
We would also be treating asylum seekers the same as all other decent human beings which they are.
"There's only one race the human race" Nelson Mandela?

the_syco

Mr.Micro wrote: »

To go back to the same argument I am sure has been stated countless times before, us Irish went everywhere in the world looking for opportunity and work, so let us be generous and wise.

I agree whole heartily. Especially the bit about us not getting a cent when we landed on the foreign shores. And in the present climate, showing that we can support ourselves when we arrive to our destination, and have enough money to go back home if we don't prosper.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That was actually an accident. Donegallad/donegalfella whats deprecatory exactly?

Quote:
How does this sound.

1. Irish people have engaged in outrageous terrorist attacks in Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. Irish people in general have been responsible for a great many terrorist attacks in Britain costing the British Taxpayer millions of pounds.

Are these statements acceptable?

The first statement is perfectly acceptable to me, since it can imply "some Irish people." Obviously the second is untrue, since it implies "all Irish people." However, you seem entirely unaware of what was modifying what in my phrase "My point about Nigerians in general," which could be written "My general point about Nigerians," if you prefer

Not true. Why are you condradicting yourself again and misleading us? Your own quote again below with your own italics shows clearly that you were refering to "Nigerians in General" and to "Ms. Pamela Izevbekhai in particular " . Certainly not "My general point about Nigerians," as you suggest.

My point about Nigerians in general is that they have filed a great many bogus asylum cases in the Irish courts over the last fifteen years, costing the Irish taxpayer millions of euros in legal aid each year. My further point is that these Nigerians are by no means authentic asylum seekers fleeing from genuine persecution: They are economic migrants with a disproportionate tendency, unparalleled among Ireland's other foreign nationals, to be unemployed and dependent on social welfare.

My point about Ms. Pamela Izevbekhai in particular is that she has led the immigration authorities, the courts, and the taxpayers of this country on a merry dance for almost four years. Her incoherent story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Our courts have repeatedly decided that she and her daughters do not deserve asylum in this country—and yet she is now trying to use the European courts to pave the way for a Supreme Court challenge here in Ireland. All at the expense of the Irish taxpayer.

As you have agreed that the example statement about "Irish people in general" is untrue means all Irish people and perhaps you could withdraw
your statement about Nigerians in General as meaning "All Nigerians" and therefore also untrue?

Most Nigerians have never been to Ireland

So you keep reminding us. I don't see the relevance of that statement at all.

Perhaps you see the relevance of this now.

Please dont whine again about me using some of your old quotes DF. If they were consistant and not contradictory they wouldnt appear so weak. Is it OK to shout "racism" when somebody makes deprecatory remarks about "Nigerians in General"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

the_syco wrote: »

I agree whole heartily. Especially the bit about us not getting a cent when we landed on the foreign shores. And in the present climate, showing that we can support ourselves when we arrive to our destination, and have enough money to go back home if we don't prosper.

I guess it doesn't cost a cent for your government to lobby my government to have Irish people that broke the law in my country to be treated differently than everyone else. That's the Irish boy mammy syndrome writ large.

Swords driver

Sovtek, A lot of Irish people believe that "illegal" is illegal no matter who the illegal is and that the US should treat them (Irish illegal's) exactly as they would treat any other illegal. Our Government is and has been a joke in many area's of its administration and running of to the US to plead the case of Irish illegals is just another excuse for a free junket. So, send them back home as illegal immigrants, just as the Irish state should return illegal immigrants back home.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

Swords driver wrote: »

Sovtek, A lot of Irish people believe that "illegal" is illegal no matter who the illegal is and that the US should treat them (Irish illegal's) exactly as they would treat any other illegal.

I actually have a much better solution to that particular problem...

There's a distinct lack of quality Mexican food in this country. So, in exchange for the US documenting illegal Irish immigrants, we will take an equal number of illegal Mexican immigrants off their hands, which will:

1. Provide us with top-quality, authentic Mexican food
2. Up the general attractiveness of the Irish population

Everybody wins.