Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whats the point of quoting the Geneva convention in this instance?
Nobody is arguing that he applied for asylum based on the Geneva convention.

His status in Nigeria has clearly rocketed as a result of his fantastic achievements in Ireland. It would not be possible to persecute him now based on religion.

Africans are very proud of their successful sons. Adebe Bikili was able to avoid the death sentence for high treason in Ethiopia due to his running prowess.
The treason was for involvement in a coupe d'etat against Emperor Selaisse.
The emperor could simply not risk the public backlash to executing him. On a different scale perhaps but someone would simply not succeed in trying to harm Rotimi Adebari.

He was allowed to stay in Ireland as guardian to his Irish child.
If he is being labelled a scammer because of this then the implication is that by induction every single person in that group is a scammer which is ludicrous.

His excellent contribution to Irish society and the local community in Portlaise speaks volumes for his integrity.

...he is considering running for governor in his home country?!

Is he? Where did you get this information? The only sources Ive heard claim he is considering running for the Dail.

"THE mayor of Portlaoise, independent councillor Rotimi Adebari has indicated that his ambition is to be elected to Dail Eireann as a public representative. He has been courted by a range of political parties in Portlaoise but has so far remained steadfast as an independent."

Again can I ask again that we stop these unsubstantiated attacks against Nigerians?

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't entirely agree with that.

If Ms Izevbekhai is genuinely afraid that her daughters will be abducted and subjected to FGM should they return to Nigeria, then using whatever means she has at her disposal, including legal channels and emotional appeals, in order to prevent this would not necessarily make her a "bogus" applicant, just one who is desperate to do absolutely anything she can possibly do in order to keep herself and her children from being sent back to a country where she fears for their safety.

Her claim for asylum may have been one made in good faith, with Ms Izevbekhai genuinely believing that she and her daughters could have grounds for asylum. However, I would have some suspicions over the circumstances surrounding her entry to Ireland. Whether she travelled to Ireland via Amsterdam or via Britain, she entered another safe EU country first and it was there that she should have made her application for asylum.

While the vast majority of those who apply for asylum in Ireland are not found to merit refugee status, relatively few of those who fail to prove their case for asylum are actually deported. I could therefore see why somebody who knew that he or she did not have a strong case for asylum and that they were almost certain to be rejected would prefer to come to Ireland, since they could feel that they would have a decent shot at remaining in the country, even after their claim was rejected.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the question. I'd call the latter Pamela Izevbekhai a bogus asylum seeker but I wouldn't feel comfortable applying the term to the former Pamela Izevbekhai.

mikemac

HollyB wrote: »

However, I would have some suspicions over the circumstances surrounding her entry to Ireland. Whether she travelled to Ireland via Amsterdam or via Britain, she entered another safe EU country first and it was there that she should have made her application for asylum.

Key point realy and needs to be highlighted.
The lawyers (we pay for) will make their cases and the Irish and European judges will make a decision which she and her legal team will be bound by. And we'll all accept this, whatever decision is made

But even her greatest defender has to wonder why applicants are picking and choosing what country they decide to make her application in.
The Netherlands or the UK are unsafe countries now but Ireland isn't? Did she flee Amsterdam? We know she didn't so why not apply there?
Picking & choosing going on here imo.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

micmclo wrote: »

Key point realy and needs to be highlighted.
The lawyers (we pay for) will make their cases and the Irish and European judges will make a decision which she and her legal team will be bound by. And we'll all accept this, whatever decision is made

But even her greatest defender has to wonder why applicants are picking and choosing what country they decide to make her application in.
The Netherlands or the UK are unsafe countries now but Ireland isn't? Did she flee Amsterdam? We know she didn't so why not apply there?
Picking & choosing going on here imo.

One thing that has been established is that she didn't come here via Amsterdam. Not one piece of evidence points to her coming through schiphol (an airport i have had many dealings with btw), all the evidence points to her coming via the UK. She had a multi-visit visa to enter Britain in June 2004. I personally am looking forward to her deportation, we cannot allow this sort of expensive nonsense to continue.

mikemac

Oh, my mistake
I read something about being waved through a checkpoint in Amsterdam on this thread
And I naively believed it was true

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The former Pamela Izevbekhai not being a bogus asylum seeker doesn't necessarily mean that she deserves asylum. It just means that she sees her case as having genuine merit. It doesn't mean that it does. Her thinking that she deserves asylum doesn't mean that the courts think that she deserves asylum and it's the verdict of the courts that counts, not her opinion - or the opinion of protesters shrieking "racism" whenever an asylum seeker fails in his or her claim for asylum, for that matter.

If the European Court of Human Rights decides that she is entitled to asylum, then we could see the floodgates open. If they decide against her, as seems likely to be the case, it should actually make it more difficult for somebody to plead FGM as grounds for asylum, not less. The decision will have been made.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A disgusting post, dropping context to further smear Nigerians. Again, I smell racism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying the issue.

So what happens if the ECHR says that she can take her case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court finds against her? Has she any other legal cards to play?

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The only precedent to this case in a common-law judicial system is the case of the 18 year old Somalian girl Zainab Fornah in the UK in 2006.
Since she was granted asylum for reasons of FGM over 2 years ago there has been 3 applications for asylum using fear of FGM in the UK. One accepted, one refused, one likely to be accepted on appeal.

Quite simply, if Pamela Izevbekhai is granted asylum on these exceedingly flimsy grounds, other refugee-seeking families will make a beeline for Ireland to claim similar relief. The average Nigerian woman has between 5 and 6 children, so it is fair to say that the majority of Nigerian women have daughters. It is quite easy to see where this is going. If we are not careful, a liberal precedent on FGM will see us rewarded with yet another wave of welfare dependents posing as persecuted asylum seekers.

See the UK precedent above.

Your pertinent phrase here is at the moment,

Yes but only because it refutes your implication that 45 million Nigerian would instantly become eligible for asylum should should Ms Izevbekhai be granted asylum. To repeat this is an impossibility under the Geneva Convention 1951.

which is one reason why the courts have given this case such careful scrutiny. Quite simply, if Pamela Izevbekhai is granted asylum on these exceedingly flimsy grounds, other refugee-seeking families will make a beeline for Ireland to claim similar relief

I'm afraid that I agree the courts may fear the "floodgates" in this case.

if Pamela Izevbekhai is granted asylum on these exceedingly flimsy grounds

Fear of FGM has actually been considered a strong case for granting asylum in other countries in recent years.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you can actually substantiate your "well founded claims" against a persons good name then they are less likely to be called "unsubstantiated attacks". You and others have distincly failed to show that any of your criticism of Mr Adebai is legitimate.

T runner

Nodin wrote: »

A disgusting post, dropping context to further smear Nigerians. Again, I smell racism.

There has not being a substantiated reason given as to why this man has been entered into this debate, singled out and attacked.
Yet he has been called a liar, a fraudster and a scammer on this thread.

The fact that he is one of the brightest stars of African Ireland and a leader in cultural integration in this country make him an attractive target to some, I fear.

T runner

HollyB wrote: »

I wouldn't entirely agree with that.

If Ms Izevbekhai is genuinely afraid that her daughters will be abducted and subjected to FGM should they return to Nigeria, then using whatever means she has at her disposal, including legal channels and emotional appeals, in order to prevent this would not necessarily make her a "bogus" applicant, just one who is desperate to do absolutely anything she can possibly do in order to keep herself and her children from being sent back to a country where she fears for their safety.

Her claim for asylum may have been one made in good faith, with Ms Izevbekhai genuinely believing that she and her daughters could have grounds for asylum. However, I would have some suspicions over the circumstances surrounding her entry to Ireland. Whether she travelled to Ireland via Amsterdam or via Britain, she entered another safe EU country first and it was there that she should have made her application for asylum.

While the vast majority of those who apply for asylum in Ireland are not found to merit refugee status, relatively few of those who fail to prove their case for asylum are actually deported. I could therefore see why somebody who knew that he or she did not have a strong case for asylum and that they were almost certain to be rejected would prefer to come to Ireland, since they could feel that they would have a decent shot at remaining in the country, even after their claim was rejected.

Yes, her actions are very much consistent with someone who is scared to death for herself and her children. The genuine asylum seeker would fight tooth and nail to save herself and her kids. And what a hard fight she has fought!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So first you claimed her actions in defending her case demonstrated she was bogus

Hers are not the actions of a genuine asylum seeker.

Now youre saying that her actions show she could either be genuine or bogus.

How should a genuine asylum seeker act by the way?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This case in the ECHR is going to be based on a forward looking test, I'd be absolutely amazed if they ruled in her favour....in fact I'd be gobsmacked. This is a crystal clear case of an economic migrant using every tool (granted within the current law) to remain in Ireland. She is in fear of nothing other than not getting leave to remain......one thing for sure....the Minister won't give her that. We need the new Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 asap to stop this joke show.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good point!

marcsignal

Nodin wrote: »

A disgusting post, dropping context to further smear Nigerians. Again, I smell racism.

Nodin, in my honest opinion, if Pamela Izevbekhai and her 2 kids, were the 'white' wife and daughters of a white farmer from, say, Zimbabwe, going through the same court case (in relative terms), people could 'post a plenty' here, insinuating she is not telling the truth, and nobody would bat an eyelid in any orderly stampede to her defence.

rkeane

marcsignal wrote: »

Nodin, in my honest opinion, if Pamela Izevbekhai and her 2 kids, were the 'white' wife and daughters of a white farmer from, say, Zimbabwe, going through the same court case (in relative terms), people could 'post a plenty' here, insinuating she is not telling the truth, and nobody would bat an eyelid in any orderly stampede to her defence.

Your are absolutely dead right. Groups such as RAR almost exclusively campaign for Nigerians (or other black Africans)....if you oppose their policies, you are immediately branded a racist. I mean who wouldn't be opposed to some their policies:

"Those seeking asylum in Ireland include people fleeing from war and persecution, along with people trying to escape poverty like thousands of Irish people have done in the past. Instead of wasting money on trying to deport them, Ireland should welcome them here to live in safety." = let everyone come here and lets forget about the need for an immigration system. There are millions of poor people in Africa, these nutters (RAR) want our fecked up economy to take in more and more "asylum seekers"

Nodin

marcsignal wrote: »

Nodin, in my honest opinion, if Pamela Izevbekhai and her 2 kids, were the 'white' wife and daughters of a white farmer from, say, Zimbabwe, going through the same court case (in relative terms), people could 'post a plenty' here, insinuating she is not telling the truth, and nobody would bat an eyelid in any orderly stampede to her defence.

Considering the well publicised persecution of persons in Zimbabwe, I'd find that hard to believe.

Donegal wrote:

If you re-read the discussion, it's obvious that I introduced Adebari in response to a question by rkeane, who asked rhetorically "Can you tell me how many Nigerians we have deported to their deaths?"—implying that many "asylum seekers" face no legitimate danger in their home countries. Adebari, who voluntarily returned to a hero's welcome in his Nigerian hometown seven years after seeking refugee status in Ireland, is a prime example of this.

I mean, how could he imagine that he could face perseuction or death in Nigeria.......

Todays Guardian wrote:

Hundreds killed and over 10,000 people displaced
• Suspected vote-rigging in state polls sparks violence

Officials were counting the dead in a central Nigerian city yesterday after two days of violent clashes between Christian and Muslim gangs.
Nearly 400 bodies are reported to have been received at the main mosque in Jos, while there are also expected to be a significant number of Christian casualties. Thousands of people fled their homes in the city after rival mobs burned houses, shops, and several churches and mosques in the worst sectarian violence in the country since 2004.

(my underline)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/nigeria-christianity-islam-jos-riots

rkeane

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the well publicised persecution of persons in Zimbabwe, I'd find that hard to believe.




I mean, how could he imagine that he could face perseuction or death in Nigeria.......

(my underline)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/nigeria-christianity-islam-jos-riots

I thought someone would try and bring that into the equation.....Nigeria is twice the size of California......there are plenty of peaceful places for Pamela Izevbekhai to live in peace....after all she's obviously an economic migrant.

Nodin

rkeane wrote: »

I thought someone would try and bring that into the equation.....Nigeria is twice the size of California......there are plenty of peaceful places for Pamela Izevbekhai to live in peace....after all she's obviously an economic migrant.

That was actually posted in reference to Mr Adebari.