Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

djpbarry

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

It's a barbaric practice but uncommon in Nigeria and only happens in the really backward Muslim north from what I have read...

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I ask a question ? Why did she arrive as an "illegal" immigrant ?? Why didn't she go through the proper channels ?

I was of the understanding that she applied for asylum as soon as she arrived in Ireland, which would make her an asylum seeker rather than an illegal alien.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I ask a question ? Why did she arrive as an "illegal" immigrant ?? Why didn't she go through the proper channels ?

I would guess that if she'd arrived legally that there would be no issue with her being here.

So, broken down to that, is her plight of her own making ?

work permits and green cards are extremely difficult to obtain. since nigeria is a visa required country, and the fact that many come here, it may be difficult to obtain a vistor visa etc

Tha Gopher

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think it is very relevant in that its only 5 minutes ago that people started to come to live and work in Ireland, before that we were a people exporter. Now we want to close the door. It does not work like that we have a responsibility to all people who live or reside in Ireland.

Christ, how many times!

The English shot themselves in the foot by letting in every Irish person who wanted in at a time when the British economy, while, in London at least, healthier than ours, was not doing particularly well either.

It is lucky for us that they did let us in. Fact is they were unwise to do so.

bartholomewbinn

How did she get here in the first place? There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland. Is it possible to do this without proper visas etc? Is it just like getting a ticket from Dublin to Cork on Aer Arann? If so the entire system is a joke.

PaintingMedium

What I read, someone please correct me if these were lies, is that her and her huband came to the Netherlands firstly, then they went to the U.K. and whilst applying there, they came to Ireland. So first port of call is it??

Another thing I have read is that there is a ten year difference between when her child died and when she came to Ireland, so if you are fleeing, why would you flee with the husband that did this to your dead child and secondly, why the huge difference in years.

Something is very unusal in this case, and I think we are not being told the full story, I have faith in Mr Lenihan (and I hate FF) that he will be able to see the truth in this matter and act accordingly

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland.

Indeed she did; I believe she travelled via Amsterdam.

PaintingMedium wrote: »

What I read, someone please correct me if these were lies, is that her and her huband came to the Netherlands firstly, then they went to the U.K. and whilst applying there, they came to Ireland.

I have not read anything that suggested she had applied for asylum anywhere other than Ireland. She had applied for a UK visa in 2004, but I do not believe an application for asylum was made.

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Another thing I have read is that there is a ten year difference between when her child died and when she came to Ireland, so if you are fleeing, why would you flee with the husband that did this to your dead child and secondly, why the huge difference in years.

From what I have read, it was the husband's family who were responsible, rather than the husband himself. Secondly, I understand she relocated within Nigeria after the birth of her two surviving daughters, but violent attempts were made to abduct them, so she fled to Ireland. As far as I know, this has all been accepted by the High Court. The problem is (as far as the Court is concerned) that she failed to prove as a matter of certainty that the children would be circumcised if sent home.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

How did she get here in the first place? There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland. Is it possible to do this without proper visas etc? Is it just like getting a ticket from Dublin to Cork on Aer Arann? If so the entire system is a joke.

You have been told the answerr to this many times. I'll tell you again and if I see you ask the question again, I'll assume you are a troll deliberately spreading misinformation.

The first immigration checkpoint you enter is the first port of call. When you land in transit, you are not generally subject to immigration. You can fly from Non EU countries to Ireland, via another EU country without ever going through immigration (I have done it).

In addition, the definition of first port of call is not a literal one. There have been threads explaining this in detail that you have participated in.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

You have been told the answerr to this many times. I'll tell you again and if I see you ask the question again, I'll assume you are a troll deliberately spreading misinformation.

The first immigration checkpoint you enter is the first port of call. When you land in transit, you are not generally subject to immigration. You can fly from Non EU countries to Ireland, via another EU country without ever going through immigration (I have done it).

In addition, the definition of first port of call is not a literal one. There have been threads explaining this in detail that you have participated in.

I am not a troll and the question I am asking is this, can someone (who is not an EU citizen) buy a ticket from Nigeria to Ireland (via wherever) in Lagos with no visa. just pay their money and buy a ticket.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not a troll and the question I am asking is this, can someone (who is not an EU citizen) buy a ticket from Nigeria to Ireland (via wherever) in Lagos with no visa. just pay their money and buy a ticket.

I don't have a VISA to work in Ireland, I was in Ireland very recently. I bought a ticket online, turned up at the airport, showed my passport, got on a plane, stopped at immigration in Dublin.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I don't have a VISA to work in Ireland, I was in Ireland very recently. I bought a ticket online, turned up at the airport, showed my passport, got on a plane, stopped at immigration in Dublin.

What happened then? When you were stopped at immigration? I take it you came from outside the EU.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What happened then? When you were stopped at immigration? I take it you came from outside the EU.

What normally happens when someone from outside of the EU comes to an EU immigration checkpoint, they looked at my documents.

I could, I assume, have sought asylum at that point.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

What normally happens when someone from outside of the EU comes to an EU immigration checkpoint, they looked at my documents.

I could, I assume, have sought asylum at that point.

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

So? Visa checks are the sole reponsibility of the Immigration office of the country.

It is not the remit of the airline or travel agent to work on Visas, indeed they would probably be in violation of internationa law were they to do so.

The airline merely has to keep a record of who is travelling and ensure the person on the ticket is the person on the plane.

Likewise, when I go to Asia or the EU on an US passport, noone ever checks my Visa status before I enter the country.


As I said, there is noone checking immigration status between your exit port and your final destination.

The sole exception to all of this is Aer Lingus flights from Ireland to the US, where immigration is before boarding the plane.

walrusgumble

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

i am not surprised about this - it is happening.

if one observes the few transcripts the rat, all if most, claim (ie asylum seekers who came into ireland with the assistance of a travel agent and on forge passports) where able to pass by the immigration officers without a bother. of course the tribunal does not tend to believe them- but its a regular claim - something must be wrong, are these immigration officers doing proper checks - there are way to many claims made that they easily got through. the dept should monitor this, how many are on patrol at a given time- damn all of these people are charged under the theft and fruad act 2001, illgeal immigrant act 2000 or immigration act 2004? (of course international law and guidelines request that asylum seekers dont get punished-which in many cases considering genuine circumstances is faair enough)

walrusgumble

djpbarry wrote: »

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.
I was of the understanding that she applied for asylum as soon as she arrived in Ireland, which would make her an asylum seeker rather than an illegal alien.

how old is that source????? (by the looks of things 2001-2003, Nigeria has changed since then) how cedible is it? it cant hardly be a definite source when it confesses that it is unable to give an exact quota or even a guess as to the numbers of fgm. can you find updated coi? there is no mention of fgm in amnesty's recent human rights report.


The UK Home Office Operation Guidelines for Nigeria for Winter 2007 (look newer coi) provides the following
Treatment. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural tradition that is widely practised in Nigeria. The Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) have estimated the FGM rate at approximately 19 percent among the nation’s female population, and the incidence has declined steadily in the past 15 years. While practised in all parts of the country, FGM is reportedly much more common in the southern part of the country, where prevalence rates for women aged 15-49 reportedly reach almost 60 percent. The NDHS survey found that women from northern states are less likely to undergo the severe type of FGM known as infibulation and that the age at which women and girls were subjected to the practise varied from the first week of life until after a woman delivers her first child; however, three-quarters of the survey respondents who had undergone FGM had the procedure before their first birthday.36
3.10.3 Sufficiency of protection. The Nigerian constitution outlaws inhumane treatment but also provides for citizens to practise their traditional beliefs. The Federal Government publicly opposes the practise of FGM but there are at present no federal laws banning FGM throughout the country. In 2006, however, the Ministry of Health, women’s groups, and many NGOs sponsored public awareness projects to educate communities about the health hazards of FGM. Some states (Bayelsa, Edo, Ogun, Cross River, Osun, and Rivers States) have enacted legislation at state level banning the practise of FGM and many other states are in the process of doing so. However, in spite of these laws and campaigns the custom of FGM continues. In its National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), which was launched in May 2004 the Federal Government stated its intention to intensify its campaign for the eradication of harmful traditional practises such as FGM.37
3.10.4 In states where FGM is prohibited in law, a female seeking to avoid FGM in spite of pressure from her family to do otherwise has the opportunity to make a complaint to the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) or the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). However, in practise very few such complaints are made to those bodies. The matter is usually dealt with within the family and on occasion traditional leaders might also be asked to intervene. However, the ‘traditional attitude’ of a police officer or a village council would normally determine their level of concern and intervention. Cultural attitudes would still be prevalent and some victims would probably never have the courage to take their case to court. It has been reported that most women therefore resort to relocating to another location if they do not wish to undergo FGM.38 Furthermore, there are between 10 and 15 NGOs operating throughout Nigeria who are exclusively devoted to support women including those escaping FGM.39
3.10.5 Internal relocation. The Nigerian constitution provides for the right to travel within the country and the Federal Government generally respects this right in practise. Although law enforcement agencies regularly use roadblocks and checkpoints to search for criminals, there are no reports that government officials restrict movements of individuals
Internal relocation to escape any ill-treatment from non-state agents is almost always an option. As would be expected, some individuals may encounter a normal level of lack of acceptance by others in the new environment as well as lack of accommodation, land etc, and the situation would be considerably easier if the individual concerned has family or other ties in the new location.41 In the absence of exceptional circumstances it would nevertheless not be unduly harsh for any individual, whether or not they have family or
other ties in any new location, to internally relocate to escape this threat.
3.10.7 Conclusion. Whilst protection and/or assistance is available from governmental and non-governmental 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 claims should be certified as clearly unfounded

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.

Just checked that source. Seems like her story has a lot more truth than some have insinuated.

As it seems to me that her children are in grave danger of FGM, then they should be allowed to stay. To send them back would be in my mind inhumane.

Also concerning UK govs asylum guide lines, the following article from today Independent is very interesting:

Asylum: the peers' revolt

While it not directly about Nigeria, but about Iran I think it put a dent in the UK govs asylum credentials.

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

work permits and green cards are extremely difficult to obtain. since nigeria is a visa required country, and the fact that many come here, it may be difficult to obtain a vistor visa etc

Whether or not it's difficult isn't relevant....if it's required, it's required.

1) Did she try to get one ?
2) If so, was it refused ?
3) If it was refused, was it refused for a reason, and is that reason valid ?

Unlike others on this thread, I've no problem with people coming in to work or contribute to society, but we need to know what applies in this case. Facilitating a "squatters' rights" scenario (she's here now, so we can't deport her) doesn't work.

If any, or all of the above 3 questions apply, then by all means support her or allow an appeal. But otherwise she took a chance and it's not really our problem.

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

If you jump a queue and get away with it, you'll just encourage others to do the same, but if you join the queue and are treated fairly, then there's no argument against you.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whether or not it's difficult isn't relevant....if it's required, it's required.

1) Did she try to get one ?
2) If so, was it refused ?
3) If it was refused, was it refused for a reason, and is that reason valid ?

Unlike others on this thread, I've no problem with people coming in to work or contribute to society, but we need to know what applies in this case. Facilitating a "squatters' rights" scenario (she's here now, so we can't deport her) doesn't work.

If any, or all of the above 3 questions apply, then by all means support her or allow an appeal. But otherwise she took a chance and it's not really our problem.

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

If you jump a queue and get away with it, you'll just encourage others to do the same, but if you join the queue and are treated fairly, then there's no argument against you.

i agree with the post before you as to uk home office credibility, but i would recommend that ye in doubt would look at the us dept and others like canada and swedish (most liberal) these tend to be rehased by the home office.


to be honest, any chance of speaking a little more clearer, the eddie o'sullivan school of talk is kind of going over my head tbh. from what i can make out, i would agree with you. Just to clarify, people here are sayign that the court accept her story? grand, that a huge fence jumped. but, the court can only decide on how the minister's decision was made and if relevant, did they properly consider international instruments such as ECHR and ICCP.

the minister's point will be that she can easily seek protection and relocate eleswhere against what was probably problems with her family.

bonkey

speedboatchase wrote: »

I think this case should be dealt with rationally.

I always wince when I see this in a thread title / opening post.

Its almost a guarantee that the OP is saying that their opinion is rational, and everything else is not.

The woman entered the country illegally and is an illegal immigrant.

The laws regarding asylum do not take into account how one entered the country where asylum is being sought. Indeed, I'd go further and say that they cannot sensibly do otherwise, as many asylum seekers would - by nature of the very reasons they are seeking refuge - not have the proper documentation.

The OP wants us to deal with this rationally....so lets start by accepting that "illegal entry" is not, never has been, and should never be a precursor to "the right to seek asylum". So all of these comments about her having entered the country illegally, and her being an illegal immigrant, and all the rest of it...lets leave them aside, because htey have no place in the rational approach to this problem that the OP wanted.

And of course the news that she would be allowed stay would be international and show the world that we're a soft touch when it comes to illegal immigration,

The news that she would be allowed to stay would send the message that Ireland takes its asylum responsibilities seriously, and does not cast out those who genuinely merit asylum on grounds that have nothing to do with asylum, such as claims of being an illegal immigrant.

What's everyone elses thoughts? I'm glad this is making people face up to the horrors of female genitial mutilation but that is, I repeat NOT, a product of the West and our values. It is Nigerias cross to bear and under no circumstances should our values and ideals be compromised or vilified over whatever decision is finally met IMO

My thoughts are that you should come straight out and say that you reject the notion of asylum entirely, given that by definition the problems that refugees seek are always some other nation's cross to bear.

The genocide in Darfur...a tragedy, but its the Sudan's cross to bear, right?
The Tibetans being oppressed by the Chinese....another tragedy, but again, not our problem...let the Tibetans and the Chinese deal with their own problems, right?
The women being mutliated by FGM? Again...horrific, but its not like we're doing it, so we don't have to lift a finger.

This is the reasoning the OP wants us to accept as being "rational" - that because we are neither the oppressor nor the oppressed, its not our problem.

If Ireland bordered a nation like the Sudan, would the OP be telling us to throw the refugees back over the border to Darfur? If we neighbouredAfghanistan or Iraq, could we kick the million-plus refugees back into the warzones? After all, its "a cross to bear" for those war-torn nations, not their neighbours.

I'm sure, of course, that the OP will come back, outraged that I could misconstrue their position so willfully, and will make an empassioned plea that of course they're not rejecting the notion of asylum.

They're just rejecting the notion of asylum in Ireland because we're lucky enough to be far-enough removed that we can pick someone between us and wherever and insist that they should bear the cross because we don't want to.

And thats what it ultimately boils down to, isn't it. This "rational" argument that says we should send girld home to be mutilated is not that we want them mutilated...we just don't want to pay for their salvation....we want someone else to.

Where do we draw the line? At what point is the OP willing to say that someone's life is worth saving, rather than deciding its "not our cross to bear" because we're not the ones actually comitting the atrocities?

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

It doesn't give you amnesty, no more than it requires without exception that you be thrown back out.

Executive Steve

dsmythy wrote: »

Kevin Myers wrote a piece on this.

Pretty much echos my own thoughts on it.

nice try but male circumcision != female genital mutilation

Lemming

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

nice try but male circumcision != female genital mutilation

I wont comment one way or other on the case, but I will on this. Circumcision without the consent of the participant (outside of genuine medical need) is mutilation. There's a rather big thread raging on this in the ladies lounge with some remarkably informed and detailed posts against the practice as a "custom".

bonkey

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

nice try but male circumcision != female genital mutilation

That would be a western-value-based judgement....which was exactly Myer's point.

Lemming

bonkey wrote: »

That would be a western-value-based judgement....which was exactly Myer's point.

+1

cabinteelytom

Walrus g's post of today, timed 12.46, is very informative. We learn that several states within the Federal Republic of Nigeria have laws outlawing FGM.
Conclusion. :There is just no case, if an individual can seek sanctuary in one of the states of her own country.

gazzer

This may seem like a very niaive statement but if this woman feared for the safety of her children why didnt she just move to another part of Africa (e.g Cape Town). Is there some particular reason why she left Africa altogether?

Firetrap

Yes, that's a goodquestion. Of all the other countries she could've gone to, why Ireland?

purple'n'gold

Firetrap wrote: »

Yes, that's a goodquestion. Of all the other countries she could've gone to, why Ireland?

A good reason for plenty of international publicity when she is being deported. The word has to go out that Ireland is not a soft touch for illegal immigrants. Deportations should be very visible, to send out the correct message.

moneyblues

gazzer wrote: »

This may seem like a very niaive statement but if this woman feared for the safety of her children why didnt she just move to another part of Africa (e.g Cape Town). Is there some particular reason why she left Africa altogether?

Tell me something - if your daughter died as a direct result of being kidnapped and multilated and you had two remaining daughters wouldn't you run as far as you possibly could to protect them? I know I would.I can see many people on this thread have a serious difficulty with the concept of empathy but for goodness sake most of us have children. We know we would do anything for them. This woman lost a child!!

Gobán Saor

Firetrap wrote: »

Yes, that's a goodquestion. Of all the other countries she could've gone to, why Ireland?

A good question indeed. The UNHCR statistics show that Ireland is the destination of choice for Nigerians - more come here than to ANY OTHER COUNTRY on the planet. Now, I think this is, ah, a bit odd to say the least and raises suspicions of bogus asylum seeking. However, I've mentioned this on other threads and, strangely, some people do not find this remarkable at alland come up with all sorts of reasons why this rainy windswept island far away in the North Atlantic is such a beacon for asylum seeking Nigerians. Me, I think it's simple - we're seen as a soft touch.