Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats all well and good but if most Irish people feel this way it surely doesn't get expressed in your media nor by pressure on your elected officials.
Personally I couldn't give a **** about illegals in either place. Calling someone "illegal" because they didn't necessarly follow a "law" that is...at the best of times arbitrary and the information to follow the law hard to come by or often not understood by the people tasked with upholding it.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

Brilliant idea. I do miss my Mexican food.
I seriously doubt you want a bunch of Rush Limbaugh fans with Boston accents flooding the country.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ive already told you it was an accident. Obviously people's word doesnt count for too much with you, which may explain some of your more serious misjudgements. The fact that you dont believe me is a reflection on your poor judgement not my honesty.

Whats deprecatory about Donegallad anyway? Why so sensitive?
Does "lad" mean something different to "fella" in Donegal?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Grammatical distinctions:
The first line used the word "general" as an adjective to describe "Nigerians".
The remaining points used the word "general" as an adjective to describe "your point" but Im sure a smart wee lad like yourself knew that already?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, but you did intend to make a deprecatory remark about "Nigerians in general" which you should withdraw.

In almost all your references to Nigerian Asylum Seekers who generically refer to them as Nigerians. This is deliberate to try and discredit people who happen to be Nigerians. If you are genuinely not trying to do this then please refer to them as "nigerian asylum seekers" or if you are refering to a part of that group then refer to them as "some nigerian asylum seekers".


Heres a list again of your own quotes. Ill let people make up their own minds

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? i.e The problem is not that they are Nigerians the problem is that Nigerians behave so badly. T Runner
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. Nigerians have engaged in outrageous abuse of our country's pre-2004 citizenship laws.

donegalfella wrote: »

You have yet to show me where I have been inconsistent and self-contradictory; and until you do so, I'll continue to believe that my arguments hang together a lot better than yours, in my humble opinion. I note that you haven't bothered responding to my backing up my claim, which you so vociferously dispute, that "Nigerians have engaged in outrageous abuse of our country's pre-2004 citizenship laws."

For response to last part see list above.

A pertinent example of your condradictions follows. In the first quote you state that you are not commenting on Pamela Izevbekhai's character.

On what grounds can I determine whether Izevbekhai is "genuine"? I'm commenting on her case, not her character.

Lets see if the following Quotes are consistant with or contradictory to this.

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.

A despicable attack on Ms Izevbekhai, cynically implying she wasnt terrified after her daughters death. Outrageous. Is this not a comment on her character? Please explain.

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.

Big Surprize, deprecating Ms. Pamela Izevbekhai particularly, not her case.

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.

Another attack on her. You seem to have a problem with the system, why attack her?

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.

On what grounds can I determine whether Izevbekhai is "genuine"?

Indeed

I hope Ms Izevbekhai's gets the result in Europe shes looking for and deserves and delights the people of Sligo by being allowed refugee status.
Im glad Ive read this post as I fully intend to get involved with helping migrants, letting them know the majority of Irish people are rational and not biased and educating people about migration.
The undercurrent of xenophobia on this post was disturbing but by sifting through the posts far enough, ideas founded on irrational prejudices always tend to condradict themselves. The reason is that these posts always have the irrational prejudice to adhere to, and so the "facts" get twisted in wahtever way suits at a particular time to satisfy the argument.

A consistent correct idea should not be contradictory.

Dont worry wont be drawing any general dispersions about Donegal or its people from my encounter with you my little Donegal friend.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wonder what you would have said had she immediately fled directly to Ireland instead of trying to solve her plight without leaving the country first.
Here are a few suggestions if you need some help:

a)why did she not try moving away from her family in Nigeria first?
b)Why is she not claiming asylum in a surrounding country?
c)why is she not claiming asylum in the first place she landed?
d)why do we have to take care of Nigeria's problems anyway?

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She is not undocumented actually...she applied for asylum.
The difference implies one is a criminal.
What ever about the non-existent "pc brigade".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah ok fair enough.

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what should she have done then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have put forward a plausible explanation for this at least three times on this thread and I don't believe you have acknowledged it? Your arguments at this stage seem rather repetitive.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have they? What are you basing this on?

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do we know for a fact that she did not?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you edited my username "by accident."

Or did that key get broken in the same accident in which you edited my username?

Heres the original quote you are referring to where you claim I deliberately
"edited" your name:

From Donegallad:
Quote:
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

.

donegalfella wrote: »

your sobriquet should have read like this?]

So I would have needed to replace fella with lad, delete the lines "original post by", unbold it and somehow remove that blue arrow all to achieve the massive insult (apparently) of calling you "Donegallad" instead of "Donegalfella"???

Do you not see how ridiculous you are being?

For the record, I actually typed "From Donegalad:" all by myself inside general quotes, and your sobriquet incorrectly from memory, no editing, no slight intended.

Any chance of putting your hand up in apology for your misjudgement?

(BTW my subsequent calling you "smart wee lad," and "my little Donegal friend" was deliberate: dont like being called a liar and you seemed to be a bit sensitive there. Sorry about that, its never good to react)

Nonsense. The various senses in which I have used the term "Nigerians" are evident from context. Nobody else seems to have any difficulty grasping the intended meaning.

But I dont have any difficulty grasping the intended meaning either.
(and your grammar is correct too)

A grammatical maestro at work. And why the random capitalisation of "asylum seekers"?

Again, the work of a grammatical maestro.

Someone so attuned to correct usage would hardly be expected to spell "surprise" with a "z" now, would he? Nor would he be expected to capitalise it at random.


Yes, let's let people make up their own minds, shall we? So far, you don't seem to have impressed anyone. By the way, did you ever hear of a grammatical invention called the apostrophe? Or did that key get broken in the same accident in which you edited my username?

Now, Now. Dont get stroppy, stick to answering the arguments not deliberately avoiding them.

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.

Well, she wasn't terrified enough to leave Nigeria, was she? She didn't leave until 2005, by which time she had two other daughters, aged 4 and 2.

Is that your defence? She didnt leave Nigeria immediately therefore she wasnt as terrified as she claimed?
She was a young girl herself in 1994 faced with male violence in one of its most terrible forms. And after her daughter was mutilated, sewn up and killed
she didnt immediately leave Nigeria therefore she wasnt terrified enough to leave Nigeria? Imagine, a young girl made childless in a completely male dominated environment not terrified enough to organise for her migration?
Is it also possible that the threat of FGM to one of her daughters had diminished for the next number of years after the death of her only daughter?

By your books, I guess a woman is experiencing domestic violence over a number of years is bogus because she obviously wasnt terrified enough to leave her tormentor after the first incident? Yes?

Sorry, but you haven't managed to expose any "contradictions"—not in my posts, anyway.

Lets see.

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

On what grounds can I determine whether Izevbekhai is "genuine"? I'm commenting on her case, not her character.

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.

This is an immature sarcastic attack on her character and directly contradicts your previous assertion that you are only commenting on her case.

No doubt you will choose to ignore this contradiction yet again.

No, a perfectly legitimate remark on Ms. Izevbekhai's own claim that she has wealth in Nigeria. If this is the case, why isn't she contributing to her legal expenses? Why is the taxpayer picking up the tab?

Does she have accessible wealth in Nigeria (from where she has fled)?. I very much doubt it.
Does she have accessible wealth in Ireland?
What percentage of people who are entitled to free representation in Ireland actually pay for it? Zero?
Why are you atacking her character again and not her case?


How can "Ms Izevbekhai's [sic] ... deserve the people of Sligo"? And just to be clear, are you claiming that all the people of Sligo will be delighted if Izevbekhai attains refugee status? Or are you referring to some people in Sligo?

Fair enough, I was claiming that all the people of Sligo who know her would be delighted (I sincerely hope its true). Making this claim for "the people of Sligo" or Sligonians might be attributing certain opinions or characteristics to people that didnt actually have them.

Well, good for you. I wish you all the best in your philanthropic future.

Thanks again, sarcasm noted.
That was more a comment for everyone/anyone? reading this post. If I find any valuable ways to volunteer in this field, I will post.

HollyB

balanced view wrote: »

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.

The problem with that is that it won't be long before you have people whose applications for asylum are rejected protesting that they've got a job, they've rented a house/apartment, the kiddies are going to school, they're settled, they're integrated and they should be allowed to stay... despite the fact that they came as asylum seekers and have been found to be ineligible for asylum.

We shouldn't have a system where people are spending years waiting for applications to be processed, in some cases delaying the process themselves with appeal after appeal after appeal. Those in charge of applications for refugee status should set out the conditions, once and for all and decisions should be made within a month, at the very most. If a decision is made against an applicant, they are to be immediately served with a deportation order and deported within 14 days. If they wish to appeal the decision, they may, provided that they have suitable grounds. However, legal aid will only be provided for the first appeal. If that fails, the rules change for second and subsequent appeals.

I don't agree with the idea that solicitors should be made to pay the state's costs should they lose. What I would suggest is that, in a case like this, after the first appeal has failed, with any further appeals (a) free legal aid will not be granted, and (b) they will not be allowed to take the case at all until they have paid a bond that will cover court costs and the State’s legal fees, in the event of a loss. To make a second appeal against a decision that has already been upheld, they have to pay a fixed sum – say €10,000 for argument’s sake, although it could work out higher, depending on what kind of costs would be incurred in a typical case – to the court when they first bring their case. If they win, then the sum is refunded to them. If they lose, and costs are awarded against them, the money goes towards court costs and the State’s legal costs. Should third and subsequent appeals drag out, and should the case be referred to a higher court, the bond that has to be paid per case increases.

Obviously, individuals, along with groups like RAR would be perfectly entitled to collect money to put towards the bond but perhaps they would be more selective about lending their support to cases if they knew that a loss would leave them out of pocket. It’s very easy to be generous with the taxpayers’ money by pushing for cases to be heard over and over and over again, but I imagine that it would be a different story if they were paying themselves.

It would mean that people wouldn’t be able to claim that they couldn’t afford to pay the State’s costs if they lose. They put up the bond up front and in full and, when they do so, they have to accept the fact that, should they lose and should they be ordered to pay either court or State costs, they will forfeit the bond. If they turn around after costs are awarded against them and try to claim that they couldn’t actually afford to lose the bond money and believed that they were going to win when they put it up, tough. They will be made aware of the risk and, if they choose to take it, they have to accept the consequences if they lose. The taxpayers certainly would not be let off the hook if the State lost and tried to claim that they couldn’t afford the other side’s costs.

Solicitors can still work cases pro bono if they so choose but they won’t be arguing any case until their client can pay the bond.

In terms of costs awarded against the State, both sides should be obliged to declare what they are paying in legal fees and other expenses at the beginning of the trial, so that if one side is awarded costs, they get only what they are paying. If a solicitor is working pro bono, then obviously the State will reimburse what their client is paying them – nothing.

Measures like these should save some money when it comes to legal fees.

Shortening the length of time that it takes to process cases and deporting failed applicants immediately should cut down on the costs of accomodating asylum seekers.

oscarBravo

donegalfella and T runner, please stick to the topic at hand.

HollyB

sovtek wrote: »

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.

I don't have a problem with lobbying. They can ask for special treatment for Irish illegal immigrants in the US until they're blue in the face, it's up to the US government to decide how they wish to respond to the lobbying. It should be their choice.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

donegalfella and T runner, please stick to the topic at hand.

OK


Heres a recent article in the Irish Times including excerps from an interview with her after the European Court of Human Rights intervened.

djpbarry

HollyB wrote: »

The problem with that is that it won't be long before you have people whose applications for asylum are rejected protesting that they've got a job, they've rented a house/apartment, the kiddies are going to school, they're settled, they're integrated and they should be allowed to stay... despite the fact that they came as asylum seekers and have been found to be ineligible for asylum.

Asylum seekers should be housed in dedicated asylum centres. In my opinion, they should be allowed to work to pay their own way and contribute something while they are here. If their application is successful, they then have a foundation to build on. If not, at least we've cut costs.

HollyB wrote: »

We shouldn't have a system where people are spending years waiting for applications to be processed, in some cases delaying the process themselves with appeal after appeal after appeal.

Quite a large number of applicants are granted refugee status on appeal.

HollyB wrote: »

Those in charge of applications for refugee status should set out the conditions, once and for all and decisions should be made within a month, at the very most.

One month?!? You honestly think that's realistic?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

djpbarry wrote: »

Quite a large number of applicants are granted refugee status on appeal.

What percentage have their refugee status granted on a second or subsequent appeal, when their initial application and their first appeal have failed?

djpbarry wrote: »

One month?!? You honestly think that's realistic?

Probably not, but the timeframe for an average case to be decided should certainly be shortened.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When did wanting to stay in a country, or feeling that it is one's home become grounds for asylum? If they don't qualify for asylum, why should desire to remain in Ireland be relevant to their case for asylum?

Pride Fighter

Simple answer.
Yes.

rkeane

HollyB wrote: »

What percentage have their refugee status granted on a second or subsequent appeal, when their initial application and their first appeal have failed?



Probably not, but the timeframe for an average case to be decided should certainly be shortened.



When did wanting to stay in a country, or feeling that it is one's home become grounds for asylum? If they don't qualify for asylum, why should desire to remain in Ireland be relevant to their case for asylum?

Well hopefully come december 9th we will go into the end game with this nonsense. I had a conversation with a senior immigration lawyer this morning, from what he says she has no chance of winning....I hope he is right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From what I heard this morning, a leave 2 remain application is extremely unlikely to succeed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just imagine what the state has spent on legal costs in this case. The government have rightfully been accused of wasting public money on other matters, if they encured this huge legal bill and didn't proceed with her deportation ..... just imagine what the majority of people would think. Mr Ahern will do the same as was done with the Olivia Agbonlahor case .....he won't intervene.