Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Victor McDade

Kick her out. It's not our problem, she's not Irish, we have our own problems and it might send a message out to all the others

GuanYin

savemejebas wrote: »

Kick her out. It's not our problem, she's not Irish, we have our own problems and it might send a message out to all the others

Grown ups are talking here.

[modhat]
Please elaborate on "our own problems" - I think you'e trolling

I want to see some sort of intelligent commentary to prove me wrong.

Mike...

We have Laws to follow,it is unfair that our legal system is being evaded by so called asylum seekers,send them back from where they came.

T runner

*mono* wrote: »

We have Laws to follow,it is unfair that our legal system is being evaded by so called asylum seekers,send them back from where they came.

Did you not even read the previous post? Grown ups are talking here.

HollyB

*mono* wrote: »

We have Laws to follow,it is unfair that our legal system is being evaded by so called asylum seekers,send them back from where they came.

Why "so-called"?

If they have come seeking asylum, then surely the term asylum seekers applies, at least until such a time as they are either granted asylum or until their application for asylum is rejected and the appeals process is exhausted, at which time they become either refugees or failed asylum seekers.

Mike...

T runner wrote: »

Did you not even read the previous post? Grown ups are talking here.

Do you normally go into a strop and resort to name calling when people disagree with you?

HollyB wrote: »

Why "so-called"?

If they have come seeking asylum, then surely the term asylum seekers applies, at least until such a time as they are either granted asylum or until their application for asylum is rejected and the appeals process is exhausted, at which time they become either refugees or failed asylum seekers.

The EU stance on Refugee's is they apply in the European country where they first arrive, as Ireland has no direct transport links with many if not all countries in Africa, this woman is making her claim for asylum in the wrong country, therefore her claim is null and void, hence "so-called" hence all bets are off until a valid asylum claim is made!

Flamed Diving

dsmythy wrote: »

Kevin Myers wrote a piece on this.

Pretty much echos my own thoughts on it.

For once, I actually agree with the man.

seanybiker

that little prick who got to stay to do his leaving a few years ago is allowed to live here now. How can they send him home then take him back and keep him. He was arrested twice but we keep him anyways.

djpbarry

savemejebas wrote: »

Kick her out. It's not our problem, she's not Irish, we have our own problems and it might send a message out to all the others

The others? Other asylum seekers? Other women? Other mothers? Nicole Kidman and her kids? Help me out here.

*mono* wrote: »

The EU stance on Refugee's is they apply in the European country where they first arrive...

No it isn't. Where the hell did this myth come from? And why is it so difficult to dispel?

T runner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

For once, I actually agree with the man.

A few quotes and facts about Kevin Myers:

n July 2008, Myers wrote an article arguing that providing aid to Africa only results in increasing its population. As aresult the Immigrant Council of Ireland made an official complaint to the Garda Síochána alleging incitement to hatred

"How many girls - and we’re largely talking about teenagers here - consciously embark upon a career of mothering bastards because it seems a good way of getting money and accommodation from the State?" Kevin Myers, Irishmans Diary Irish Times.

"....and why the term "bitchiness" accurately describes how women often behave towards one other __ in precisely the same way that female dogs do: they are riven and driven by social insecurity."
An article by Kevin Myers about females on "the apprentice" on British TV.

You get the picture?

To put it mildly, females and immigrants are not on this guys favourites list.

In this article he tries to compare this unfortunate young boys case with that of the Izenbayai girls.
They are not like for like and he knows it. The first case was for manslaughter I guess. The second was an Asylum case. Myers knows this.

This boy died as a result of a botched male circumcission which resulted in his genitals being mutilated.
Every single female circumcission results in genital mutilation.

Myers also casts doubt on whether Elizabeth Izenbayai really died of FGM forteen years ago. The Irish courts have absolutely no doubts about this. Myers also knows this.

Myers effectively blames "mothers" for FGM in Africa. Yet he would surely also know that FGM is internationaly accepted as a form of male violence / torture against women.

He casts doubt on the Izenbayais:
"What if a baseless threat of circumcision is being falsely used to enable the Izevbekhais to stay?

And even if it's not, are we to be the refuge for every single Nigerian or Somalia or Chadean or Kuwaiti woman who wants to avoid genital mutilation?"

No where in his article has he shown that the threat of circumcission to the Izevbekhais is "baseless". The Irish courts have accepted that Pamela Izevbekhai genuinely believes the threat to be real. Again Myers knows this.

As for the Floodgates threat of "every single Nigerian or Somalia or Chadean or Kuwaiti woman who wants to avoid genital mutilation", surely a prominent report who does his research would know of the precedent in the UK (1 case in 3 years). Again you would imagine he would know this. The only thing "baseless" are Kevin Myers' nutter (or dleiberatly misleading?) arguments.

And who does he blame?

-Nigerian Mothers for FGM
-Pamela Izevbekhai for being dodgy: Did her daughter really die from FGM? etc
-Immigrants for male circumcission and threatening to overrun the country.
-And of course females groups.

No surprises there I guess,
Females and Immigrants.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

In this article he tries to compare this unfortunate young boys case with that of the Izenbayai girls.
They are not like for like and he knows it. The first case was for manslaughter I guess. The second was an Asylum case. Myers knows this.

I don't think you've read the article then. The comparison being made is that in the case of alleged manslaughter, the argument was being made that we should not judge practices such as circumcision using Western values, while in the Izenbayai case, this is precisely what we are being asked to do.

I'm not a great fan of Myers' agent provocator writings, but this point is actually what I have a problem with. Not that it is related to an immigrant or asylum case, not that she is black, white, eastern or western, not that it is a man, woman or turnip, but that we are making inconsistent exceptions to the rule based upon touchy-feely, idiot logic.

An excellent example of this was the Olunkunle Eluhanla case. Presented as a young innocent leaving cert "schoolboy" trying to make good in his adopted country, the nation was disgusted that we would consider deporting him. It was only after the government did a U-turn on his deportation that the real details of the case began to emerge; he wasn't a minor as most thought (he was frequently described as a "schoolboy" despite being in his twenties), and he wasn't a model citizen and finally got deported (again) after a second conviction for traffic offences.

I honestly cannot say whether the Izenbayai has merit or not, however the level of moronic, politically correct fluffy moralizing that is being displayed here is every bit as bad as any of the "send them back where they come from" idiocy. No law is perfect, and if injustice is perpetrated then we should review them, however, as with Eluhanla and Igbinidion cases, there appears to be little rhyme or reason to these ad hoc revisions outside of what makes the mob feel good at the time.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you've read the article then. The comparison being made is that in the case of alleged manslaughter, the argument was being made that we should not judge practices such as circumcision using Western values, while in the Izenbayai case, this is precisely what we are being asked to do.

I read the article, you may not have read my reply thoroughly.

Male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same thing.

Male circumcision is not Genital Mutilation if performed correctly.
Female circumcision always is.

Female circumcision is defined as torture by international protocols to which Nigeria has signed up Is male circuncision? Therefore, We are not applying Western values to Nigerian women: we are applying Nigerian values and International Human rights to them (well the Nigerian government signed the paper anyway). This has nothing to do with the fact that the "Izenbayai's" dont have Penii in the sense that Myers suggests.
(And of-course one is an asylum case, one a case or alleged manslaughter.)

we are making inconsistent exceptions to the rule based upon touchy-feely, idiot logic.

Speaking of idiot logic, how exactly does the above apply to the Izenbayai case again (which is the one after all that Myers uses to "prove" his point)?

I honestly cannot say whether the Izenbayai has merit or not

Oh, Ok you dont actually know.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

I read the article, you may not have read my reply thoroughly.

Male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same thing.

Male circumcision is not Genital Mutilation if performed correctly.
Female circumcision always is.

The article cited two cases, one where the imposition of western values was rejected, the other when it was encouraged. It is irrelevant as to whether Male circumcision is genital mutilation or not (and de facto it is, it just happens to be socially acceptable in the West and sometimes medically necessary) or female circumcision is. The Western value that was ignored in the first case was not one of circumcision; it was of an unqualified individual carrying out a medical procedure resulting in the death of an individual. That he was 'culturally' qualified was apparently enough.

So the sole question is, is it acceptable for us to impose western values or not, and if so or not, what are the criteria? In this there appears to be very little consistency and this is what was highlighted in the article.

Speaking of idiot logic, how exactly does the above apply to the Izenbayai case again (which is the one after all that Myers uses to "prove" his point)?

I've explained it again for you. If you would like me to do so again with the aid of finger puppets so you can better understand, please let me know.

Oh, Ok you dont actually know.

Exactly, and I have nowhere made any judgement on whether she should or should not be allowed to stay because of this. I genuinely don't know whether she has a valid case, the problem is a lot of others don't either and are making moralistic pronouncements either way.

turgon

Myers makes a good point, and one that is very important, if this women is allowed to stay because of fear of whats going to happen at home, what stops the whole population of Nigeria coming to Ireland, claiming same, and finding a new welfare rich home?

The Corinthian

turgon wrote: »

Myers makes a good point, and one that is very important, if this women is allowed to stay because of fear of whats going to happen at home, what stops the whole population of Nigeria coming to Ireland, claiming same, and finding a new welfare rich home?

He does, but in fairness, I don't think that the one.

Ireland has a legal and moral duty, just like any other county, to give asylum to those in genuine need. The only problem at present is that our criteria of who is genuine and who is not is completely foobar and has repeatedly been manipulated by both politically correct pro-immigration and xenophobic anti-immigration groups.

The increasing importance of PR and political intervention as valid strategies in legal cases are making a mockery of not only the system, but us all. And some of the opinions expressed here on both the pro and anti side have been laughable examples of that mockery.

turgon

The Corinthian wrote: »

The increasing importance of PR and political intervention as valid strategies.

Would you consider introducing a ban on those seeking asylum to address national media/start media campaigns and the like etc? Although a curtailment of free speech, in fairness the judges of Ireland are better adjudicators of these cases than impassioned groups of generally narrow minded interest grouped.

Just a thought.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

The article cited two cases, one where the imposition of western values was rejected, the other when it was encouraged.

Western values are not being encouraged in the Izenbayai case!

Nigeria is one of the signitaries of the Maputo protocol and also a signitaryof the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. FGM is illegal in most Nigerian states.
Values from International protocols are being applied which have been supported by Nigeria the Izenbayai's homeland.
In light of this information do you still maintain the "Myers" argument that the Izenbayai's are being judged by Western Values?

So the sole question is, is it acceptable for us to impose western values or not, and if so or not, what are the criteria? In this there appears to be very little consistency and this is what was highlighted in the article.

Your question is moot. Western values were not applied in either case.

The only problem at present is that our criteria of who is genuine and who is not is completely foobar and has repeatedly been manipulated by both politically correct pro-immigration and xenophobic anti-immigration groups.

The criteria for asylum at present is the forward looking test. Please substantiate on how this has been manipulated by the groups you outline above in this case? (Isenbayai)

The Corinthian

turgon wrote: »

Would you consider introducing a ban on those seeking asylum to address national media/start media campaigns and the like etc? Although a curtailment of free speech, in fairness the judges of Ireland are better adjudicators of these cases than impassioned groups of generally narrow minded interest grouped.

I'd prefer a ban on the overturn of judgements by politicians who are pandering to the media.

T runner wrote: »

Western values are not being encouraged in the Izenbayai case!

They are, but not necessarily by the courts. My point is not directed against Ms Izenbayai or even the legal system. If it finds that legally she has a right to seek asylum under law, I would support it. My objection is to the undue pressure being placed upon that legal system by interest groups and the media, who are selling it from the perspective of Western morality and not law.

In light of this information do you still maintain the "Myers" argument that the Izenbayai's are being judged by Western Values?

If it becomes a fiasco similar to the Eluhanla case, where a legal decision was reversed due to media inspired political pressure, then absolutely.

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

They are, but not necessarily by the courts.

What western values are being applied by the media and interest groups that are not also International/Nigerian (technically) values?
Can you reference these groups/media if you don't mind,

Do you also agree with Myers' implication that the young boy did not get justice because he "had a penis"?

From the article:

Had the dead child been female, I believe that no jury would have been told not to bring their white, western values to bear on the case

According to yourself the courts (judges) in the Izenbahai case at least seems to be in conflict with Mr Myers view of judges from that quote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well the system of appeal and legal hierarchy exists for a reason (sometimes because a legal system is ill-equipped to make a ruling on a matter, if it, say, conflicts with another law).

I'm not suggesting this is the case here, I am merely suggesting that when the powers that be review and rule on the evidence and present it to us, we can make an informed decision.

Right now, we're second guessing what information is available. Maybe they don't have anything else relevant, maybe they do. But until we have their sources, all we can do is speculate.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As a matter of curiousity, does Ireland have any kind of time limit for processing cases like this - ie., if you've been in the country X amount of years, regardless of how you came to be in the country, you are entitled to apply for permanent residency? Does time spent as an asylum seeker count in terms of applying for residency and/or citizenship?

Using this case as an example, the Izevbekhais have been in Ireland nearly four years. Is there a point when they would be entitled to be granted leave to remain based solely on the length of time they have spent in Ireland, even if they are found not to be eligible for asylum or subsidiary protection?

sceptre

HollyB wrote: »

Does time spent as an asylum seeker count in terms of applying for residency and/or citizenship?

No. For the purposes of what's called reckonable residence, if you're here illegally/undocumented, on a student visa or having an asylum claim examined, the time spent in the jurisdiction doesn't count.

sceptre

HollyB wrote: »

if you've been in the country X amount of years, regardless of how you came to be in the country, you are entitled to apply for permanent residency? Does time spent as an asylum seeker count in terms of applying for residency and/or citizenship?

No. For the purposes of what's called reckonable residence, if you're here illegally, on a student visa or having an asylum claim examined, the time spent in the jurisdiction doesn't count.

HollyB

sceptre wrote: »

No. For the purposes of what's called reckonable residence, if you're here illegally/undocumented, on a student visa or having an asylum claim examined, the time spent in the jurisdiction doesn't count.

So if somebody applying for asylum has been here for years, it doesn't make a difference to their claim - ie. somebody claiming asylum on particular grounds who has been in the country for five years would not be more legally entitled to asylum than somebody claiming asylum on the same grounds but who had been in the country for five months?

If somebody's claim for asylum and/or subsidiary protection fails, the length of time they've been in the country has no legal relevance?

sceptre

HollyB wrote: »

So if somebody applying for asylum has been here for years, it doesn't make a difference to their claim - ie. somebody claiming asylum on particular grounds who has been in the country for five years would not be more legally entitled to asylum than somebody claiming asylum on the same grounds but who had been in the country for five months?

That's actually a completely different question but dealing purely with side by side asylum applications, the answer is yes.

If somebody's claim for asylum and/or subsidiary protection fails, the length of time they've been in the country has no legal relevance?

That'd be a reworded version of what I said in the post above yours, yes.

Unless you're pushing the question towards any cases where the State may have taken roots laid down by seekers into the application decision. That would be a different question with an answer predicated on particular cases.

I may sound like I'm being vague above, but I'm actually attempting to be pretty precise.

HollyB

sceptre wrote: »

Unless you're pushing the question towards any cases where the State may have taken roots laid down by seekers into the application decision. That would be a different question with an answer predicated on particular cases.

I was curious about both, really, but mostly about whether there was an automatic time limit where it would become a case of "Mr X has been here for 5/10/15 years, he is therefore entitled to permanent residence".

In terms of the State taking roots laid down in the country by asylum seekers into account, are they required to do so or is it something that is used at the discretion of those making the decision, maybe something that can tip the balance in the applicant's favour in a case that's a bit iffy but that wouldn't be the sole basis for leave to remain being granted for somebody whose claim for asylum has been found to be without merit?

Do you know if the roots argument is applied differently to cases depending on why the asylum seeker has been in the country for so long? For example, if somebody's claim for asylum was very slow in being processed, or there was a mix-up along the line that led to it being left aside, then the delay wouldn't be their fault but if somebody caused their delay by taking failed appeal after failed appeal, would there be less sympathy with the roots argument since they'd have been a main contributing factor to the delay that led to them spending years in Ireland?

I guess what I really want to know is whether or not persistence is rewarded, even when the original basis on which asylum was sought wasn't accepted as legitimate grounds for asylum.

sceptre wrote: »

I may sound like I'm being vague above, but I'm actually attempting to be pretty precise.

Thanks for your help; it's tricky for me to understand all of the ins and outs of the law as it stands on asylum seekers, so any assistance is appreciated.

Tea drinker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What right have we to interfere in their (fvcked up) customs?
If they don't have the same values as us why import that? Surely our number one imperative is to keep this practice out of Ireland?
Why are we wasting money on this when we have our own people in dire need of shelter and medical care FFS.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.