Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?
Options
Comments
-
Gobán Saor wrote: »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.
But we get less than average form other countries. Would you like to swap our above-fair-share of Nigerians for a fair share of refugees from every other nation on the planet that there happen to be refugees from???
I'm willing to bet that you're not...that you've no issue with other countries getting more than their fair share of refugees from this nation or that nation...but when its us, its not on.
This logic falls apart when you stop looking Ireland as an isolated case. Every nation from which there are refugees will (mathematically) have a favoured destination.Now, I think this is, ah, a bit odd to say the least and raises suspicions of bogus asylum seeking.
Are you suggesting that before the refugees started coming here, we had nothing to do with Nigeria...that there is no reason why they might choose Ireland other than your "soft touch" idea?However, I've mentioned this on other threads and, strangely, some people do not find this remarkable at all
and 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.
Surely you mean that you think we're seen as a soft touch by Nigerians.Me, I think it's simple - we're seen as a soft touch.
After all, if it was more generic, then we'd have greater numbers of other nationalities too. Indeed, if it was more generic, we could expect to see that Ireland received a disproportionate number of asylum seekers compared to (say) other European nations. The reality is that we don't...which has been explained to you (I believe) on these other threads that you mentioned.0 -
Actually, I would. I would advocate expansion of the UN progamme system whereby genuine refugees (ie those fleeing in fear from political persecution) are assessed by competent international agencies and then assigned, to receiving countries, in rough proportion to the receiving countries existing population and wealth. I am totally opposed to the idea of asylum shopping where potential refugees select a country that they would quite like to emigrate to and concoct a suitable story that said country is likely to fall for.But we get less than average form other countries. Would you like to swap our above-fair-share of Nigerians for a fair share of refugees from every other nation on the planet that there happen to be refugees from???
When it's us, it up to us to say it's not on. When it's another country, it's for them to say it's not on. Simple, huh?I'm willing to bet that you're not...that you've no issue with other countries getting more than their fair share of refugees from this nation or that nation...but when its us, its not on.
Yes, obviously. And it's entirely reasonable to examine that mathematical distribution for unusual trends and patterns. Especially ones that might indicate fraudulent asylum seeking.[/quote]This logic falls apart when you stop looking Ireland as an isolated case. Every nation from which there are refugees will (mathematically) have a favoured destination.
I hardly think there was such a preexisting nexus between Ireland and Nigeria that would explain why more Nigerians choose Ireland as their asylum destination than any other country. The only faint connection would be the presence of relatively small numbers of Irish missionaries and the fact that English is widely spoken in Nigeria. There are minimal political and economic links. There would be much stronger connections between Nigeria and the UK as the former colonial power.[/quote]Are you suggesting that before the refugees started coming here, we had nothing to do with Nigeria...that there is no reason why they might choose Ireland other than your "soft touch" idea?
Well yes, if you want to put it like that. And to a numerically lesser extent by other nationalities.Surely you mean that you think we're seen as a soft touch by Nigerians.
My point has always been that asylum seekers have to exercise a deliberate, conscious CHOICE to come to Ireland, and have to arrive here having passed through another safe European country. Now, I can think of no other reason for exercising that choice except the "soft touch" argument.After all, if it was more generic, then we'd have greater numbers of other nationalities too. Indeed, if it was more generic, we could expect to see that Ireland received a disproportionate number of asylum seekers compared to (say) other European nations. The reality is that we don't...which has been explained to you (I believe) on these other threads that you mentioned.0 -
This would likely result in a pretty dramatic increase in cost to the Irish taxpayer, not to mention a large increase in asylum applicants I would imagine, given our relative wealth and low population density.Gobán Saor wrote: »I would advocate expansion of the UN progamme system whereby genuine refugees (ie those fleeing in fear from political persecution) are assessed by competent international agencies and then assigned, to receiving countries, in rough proportion to the receiving countries existing population and wealth.
Do you have evidence that suggests this is occurring on a large scale?Gobán Saor wrote: »I am totally opposed to the idea of asylum shopping where potential refugees select a country that they would quite like to emigrate to and concoct a suitable story that said country is likely to fall for.
I presume that in doing this, you would also question why Ireland is receiving a disproportionately low number of applications from countries other than Nigeria?Gobán Saor wrote: »And it's entirely reasonable to examine that mathematical distribution for unusual trends and patterns.
I would imagine that is a pretty big factor.Gobán Saor wrote: »The only faint connection would be the presence of relatively small numbers of Irish missionaries and the fact that English is widely spoken in Nigeria.
The overwhelming majority choose NOT to come to Ireland. In 2006, Ireland received less than 1.5% of all asylum applications in the industrialised world. Further, the number of applications received in Ireland has been declining rapidly since 2002.Gobán Saor wrote: »My point has always been that asylum seekers have to exercise a deliberate, conscious CHOICE to come to Ireland...0 -
Gobán Saor wrote: »Actually, I would. I would advocate expansion of the UN progamme system whereby genuine refugees (ie those fleeing in fear from political persecution) are assessed by competent international agencies and then assigned, to receiving countries, in rough proportion to the receiving countries existing population and wealth. I am totally opposed to the idea of asylum shopping where potential refugees select a country that they would quite like to emigrate to and concoct a suitable story that said country is likely to fall for.
When it's us, it up to us to say it's not on. When it's another country, it's for them to say it's not on. Simple, huh?
Yes, obviously. And it's entirely reasonable to examine that mathematical distribution for unusual trends and patterns. Especially ones that might indicate fraudulent asylum seeking.
I hardly think there was such a preexisting nexus between Ireland and Nigeria that would explain why more Nigerians choose Ireland as their asylum destination than any other country. The only faint connection would be the presence of relatively small numbers of Irish missionaries and the fact that English is widely spoken in Nigeria. There are minimal political and economic links. There would be much stronger connections between Nigeria and the UK as the former colonial power.[/quote]
Well yes, if you want to put it like that. And to a numerically lesser extent by other nationalities.
My point has always been that asylum seekers have to exercise a deliberate, conscious CHOICE to come to Ireland, and have to arrive here having passed through another safe European country. Now, I can think of no other reason for exercising that choice except the "soft touch" argument.[/QUOTE]
there is an UN progamme system - there is a document known as the unchr handbook on the criteria and procdures on determining refugee status and is updated regularily - it sets out the basic criteria of how to decide what facts should be taken and benefit of doubts, when the 5 basic grounds for refugee status should apply etc, credibility of claim if one fails to apply for asylum in first country of landing etc
. a european directive is in force in dealing it the minium standards that each member state must abide by in its laws in relation to refugee status and asylum. there is vast international case law to assist competent decision makers in setting and apply the correct rules of law and tests when determining a case. the un regulary has promoted each country to take part in asylum schemes, as the previous post stated, this does not and can not achieve what you wish for, why? every state is bound by international law not to refuse an asylum seeker (not difference between a declaration of refugee status) from its frontiers. it must consider the case (dublin convention is in bad need of renewing as not all countries in the union apply the same minium standards required.
the law is there to find what case it genuine or not. if you saw the figures you will see that a declaration for refugee status is not given in this state easily - cases do tend to be genuine. the problem in this state is the pratical side. the state in the past, have failed to act promptly in deporting that person, after an applicant has made their application for leave to remain (humanitarian grounds) and subsidiary protection but was refused. the nest problem lies in the delay for a decision from the dept in making such a decision in such applications and the tribunals being inconsistent in making their decisions, there is no published set of guidelines of the rat and rac made available to prove their credibility and transparency.
"window showing for asylum" is prevented in this country and in europe - dublin convention. but again there are huge problems with it -0 -
We should show a bit of compassion and allow the woman and her children to stay in Ireland. Why should she or her children be forced back to possible mutilation, regardless of how the practice is not Ireland's responsibility. 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.
It’s not just a question of compassion; it would not be a once-off situation, and anyone who claims that it would is either mistaken or lying. The World Health Organization estimates that 3 million girls undergo the procedure every year (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/index.html). If Mrs Izevbekhai and her daughters are allowed to remain, it sets a precedent that risk of female genital mutilation entitles girls, along with their families to remain in Ireland, and that is a precedent that we simply cannot afford to set.
Mrs Izevbekhai entered this country illegally. She has failed to prove that she and her daughters have a case for asylum, so if their case for subsidiary protection fails, then they should be deported.
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.
Not if they are here illegally; if they are claiming asylum, their case should be heard and they should be provided with accommodation, food, etc, while it is being heard. If they fail in their claim, then they should be provided with a flight back to their home countries.
We certainly do not owe anyone the right to remain in Ireland just because they’ve turned up on our shores. We also don’t owe anyone the right to remain in Ireland just because they’ve been here for a certain number of years, not if they are the ones causing the delay through failed appeal after failed appeal, or through failing to turn up when scheduled for signing on or for deportation.0 -
Advertisement
-
So be it. At least it would be fair and rational. Mind you I suggested population size rather than density be used as a factor. Obviously a country of 100 million can assimilate more than a country of 1 million.This would likely result in a pretty dramatic increase in cost to the Irish taxpayer, not to mention a large increase in asylum applicants I would imagine, given our relative wealth and low population density.
Common sense? Presence of a powerful incentive to do so coupled with human nature's desire to better one's situation.Do you have evidence that suggests this is occurring on a large scale?
And I would answer the question by referring to obvious factors such as distance from Ireland and lack of direct transport links to Ireland.I presume that in doing this, you would also question why Ireland is receiving a disproportionately low number of applications from countries other than Nigeria?
(claiming Nigerians come here because we speak English.)I would imagine that is a pretty big factor.
THAT'S a bit of a giveaway. Remember the asylum concept emerged in the aftermath of the second world war. It is supposed to be about people fleeing a dangerous country in fear of death of imminent serious persecution. Not about people spinning a globe and finding the "ideal" destination. In that scenario it is reasonable to expect them to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. It is not reasonable for them to expect to have the right to pick and choose their destination and demand residency status on the basis or mere preference, be that linguistic or otherwise. Any anyway, of all the English speaking countries (there's a lot of them!) on the planet, why do so many Nigerians pick Ireland? It's back to the "soft touch" argument in the absence of any more credible explanation.
Just as one might expect looking at the obvious factors of distance and transport links.The overwhelming majority choose NOT to come to Ireland. In 2006, Ireland received less than 1.5% of all asylum applications in the industrialised world.
Because we tightened up on some of our procedures eg abolishing the "Irish born baby" scam. This merely tends to prove that asylum-seeking in Ireland is driven by our perceived attractiveness as a destination rather than by genuine need on the part of the applicants.Further, the number of applications received in Ireland has been declining rapidly since 2002.0 -
In light of Pamela Izevbekhai I think she is basically hoping from one country to another telling hard luck stories.
However even if she isnt at some piont Nigeria has to be treated like a decent country. If we are happy enough to do business with the Nigerian goverment we should be happy enough to allow them to look after there own Citizens.
It has been stated the FGM is a crime in at least some parts of Nigeria there is no need for this woman to roam europe telling sad luck stories. She should basically start by telling the nigerian police her husbands family keep trying to snatch her kids. I am sure kidnapping is a crime in Nigeria as well.
As for the agrument its not our problem well actually its not , its a racist opinion in itself to believe that their entire country is incapable of of protecting one woman and her kids. if you dont get assistance in ireland you find another cop/judge/lawyer etc
If the Nigerian goverment was performing FGM on the two girls by all means let them stay but its not. The Irish goverment should liase with the Nigerian goverment and seek assurances on her behalf.
In essence the west refuses to help people all over Africa every day. The ones we all argue about are the ones who manage to fly themselves here and come up with the best Storys.
I genuinly believe Ireland and the UK accept asylum seekers but widespread abuse of the system as a back door to economic migration has muddied the water to the general populaces of both nations. Which is a sad thing.0 -
I would say it would be ridiculously pedantic, not to mention a logistical nightmare. Besides, I would be surprised if a majority of people in this country would be happy to accept a big increase in asylum applicants.Gobán Saor wrote: »So be it. At least it would be fair and rational.
Probably, but population density still has to be considered in such a system. For example, Ireland and New Zealand have a similar population, but Ireland is a much smaller country in terms of area, so, logically, more people can comfortably “fit” into New Zealand.Gobán Saor wrote: »Mind you I suggested population size rather than density be used as a factor. Obviously a country of 100 million can assimilate more than a country of 1 million.
Common sense is something that is distinctly lacking in that statement. I’m going to assume that you don’t have any evidence to support your earlier claim.Gobán Saor wrote: »Common sense? Presence of a powerful incentive to do so coupled with human nature's desire to better one's situation.
There are direct flights from Morocco to Ireland, yet we receive virtually no asylum applications from Moroccan nationals. Germany receives quite a few. Even Canada receives more than Ireland.Gobán Saor wrote: »And I would answer the question by referring to obvious factors such as distance from Ireland and lack of direct transport links to Ireland.
There are also direct flights from Croatia to Ireland, yet there are far more Croatian refugees in the USA than there are here.
In the case of Nigerians, this is often the case; there are more Nigerian refugees in Cameroon than anywhere else in the world.Gobán Saor wrote: »In that scenario it is reasonable to expect them to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.
I don’t know, but the UK receives a similar number of applications. South Africa receives quite a few too. There are fewer Nigerian refugees in Ireland than there are in the UK, USA or Canada (or Germany for that matter).Gobán Saor wrote: »Any anyway, of all the English speaking countries (there's a lot of them!) on the planet, why do so many Nigerians pick Ireland?
...to every country in the world? How does that make Ireland unique?Gobán Saor wrote: »Just as one might expect looking at the obvious factors of distance and transport links...
I believe you are referring to the Citizenship Referendum? In 2004? AFTER the drop-off in applications began?Gobán Saor wrote: »Because we tightened up on some of our procedures eg abolishing the "Irish born baby" scam.
Is she? Where else has she applied for asylum other than Ireland?In light of Pamela Izevbekhai I think she is basically hoping from one country to another telling hard luck stories.
Again, I don’t think she is “roaming Europe” and her “sad-luck story” (which involved the death of her child, by the way) has been accepted by the court. As has already been stated, FGM is illegal in parts of Nigeria, but the law is not being widely enforced.It has been stated the FGM is a crime in at least some parts of Nigeria there is no need for this woman to roam europe telling sad luck stories.
So what’s the point in having an asylum process at all?As for the agrument its not our problem well actually its not...
Well, we’re not talking about Ireland, are we? From the US Federal Research Division:its a racist opinion in itself to believe that their entire country is incapable of of protecting one woman and her kids. if you dont get assistance in ireland you find another cop/judge/lawyer etc
There are also plenty of human rights abuses detailed in Amnesty’s 2007 report.According to a March 2006 report by the U.S. Department of State, abuses by the Nigerian police, including the use of lethal force against suspects, are commonplace. In addition, in July 2005 Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on police torture and deaths in custody in Nigeria. The report found that attempts to reform the police had been largely symbolic and failed to address torture adequately.
...
In its 2005 report on human rights practices around the world, the U.S. Department of State found that Nigeria’s human rights record was “poor.” According to the report, Nigerian government officials and police were responsible for “serious abuses,” including politically motivated killings; the use of lethal force against suspected criminals and hostage-seizing militants in the Niger Delta; beatings and even torture of suspects, detainees, and convicts; and extortion of civilians.
Actually, plenty of people complain about the aid given by the West to Africa. Take this thread for example. Or how about that mainstay of liberty and happiness, Kevin Myers.In essence the west refuses to help people all over Africa every day. The ones we all argue about are the ones who manage to fly themselves here and come up with the best Storys.
Again, do you have evidence to show that system is being widely abused? Are there people being recognised as refugees who should not be?...widespread abuse of the system as a back door to economic migration has muddied the water to the general populaces of both nations.0 -
Nice try!:rolleyes: Actually the Supreme Court ruled in January 2003 (upholding a High Court ruling of April 2002) that the parents (and siblings, grandparents etc.) of Irish born children did not have an automatic right of residence. Then, the flood of applications began to drop dramatically. The citizenship referendum in 2004 merely tied up the loose ends and put the ending of the "Irish born baby" scam on a sound constitutional footing. (In fact, the pro-immigration lobby - Irish Refugee Council, Irish Council for Civil Liberties etc - argued at the time that the referendum was not necessary because the Supreme Court had already closed off the loophole!)I believe you are referring to the Citizenship Referendum? In 2004? AFTER the drop-off in applications began?0 -
Over the period 1996 - 2005, Ireland has received more asylum applications from Nigerian and Romanian nationals than any other nationality. The number of applications to Ireland from Nigerian nationals peaked in 2002 (4,050) and has since declined (1,278 in 2005). The number of applications to Ireland from Romanian nationals peaked in 2000 (2,386) and has also since declined (385 in 2005).Gobán Saor wrote: »Actually the Supreme Court ruled in January 2003 (upholding a High Court ruling of April 2002) that the parents (and siblings, grandparents etc.) of Irish born children did not have an automatic right of residence. Then, the flood of applications began to drop dramatically.
However, the total number of asylum applications made by Nigerian nationals anywhere in the world declined from 18,152 in 2002 to 10,463 in 2005. The same is true of the total number of Romanian applicants, down from 10,111 in 2000 to 2,700 in 2005.
The reduction in Romanian applicants is likely due to their recent accession to the EU and the reforms that were necessary to accomplish this; it seems highly unlikely that it has anything to do with the 27th Amendment.
As for Nigerian applications; if the 27th Amendment was having a significant impact on the number of Nigerian asylum applications received in Ireland, then one of two trends would be expected:- The drop-off in applications received in Ireland since 2005 (approx. 2,800) would be reflected in the global total.
- An increase in the number of applications to other countries would be seen, reflecting the number of "bogus" asylum seekers who are "forced" to "choose" a nation other than Ireland.
0 -
Advertisement
-
While I tend to agree with you, djpbarry, it should be pointed out that using those figures, Ireland received approx 22% of worldwide Nigerian applications in 2002, and approx 12% in 2005.
This suggests but does not prove that there are factors other than the worldwide dropoff over the period to account for.
I stress that it does not prove this, as we have only two data points here, which is a very poor way to define trends either which way. Additionally, it would rely on the assumption that the dropoff should balance equally across all nations.0 -
Absolutely; I was not attempting to prove anything conclusively. I was merely pointing out the flaw in Gobán Saor's argument, i.e. that asylum applications in Ireland began to decline BECAUSE of the 27th Amendment, ignoring data such as I illustrated, not to mention the decline in the global total. There are of course numerous factors to be considered, but as you say, there's not much point searching for trends over such a short period of time with such limited data. But if the total number of asylum applications made worldwide began to increase again, I would not be at all surprised if Ireland also witnessed an increase in asylum applicants.I stress that it does not prove this, as we have only two data points here, which is a very poor way to define trends either which way. Additionally, it would rely on the assumption that the dropoff should balance equally across all nations.0 -
Ah, the joys of statistics.
From 2002 to 2005, Nigerian asylum applications to Ireland fell from 4050 to 1278. A drop of 68%.
Over the same period, Nigerian asylum applications to countries other than Ireland fell from 14102 to 9185. A drop of 34%.
This is a pretty large discrepancy and suggests that factors specific to Ireland were at work. The coincidence in timing between the drop off in numbers and the Supreme Court ruling in January 2003 and the Citizenship referendum in 2004 is strongly suggestive of a causal link. Which in turn is strongly supportive of the hypothesis that a lot of Nigerian asylum seeking was driven by factors other than fear of persecution. In other words, bogus.0 -
Not really. An analysis involving two data points is hardly likely to yield a correlation. If a moving average of the data was considered, rather than selective data points, then I would expect a reasonably close correlation between the average number of Nigerian applicants to Ireland and the global total. In fact I've actually just done this in Excel - the two correlate quite well, albeit with a 1-year lag.Gobán Saor wrote: »Ah, the joys of statistics.
From 2002 to 2005, Nigerian asylum applications to Ireland fell from 4050 to 1278. A drop of 68%.
Over the same period, Nigerian asylum applications to countries other than Ireland fell from 14102 to 9185. A drop of 34%.
This is a pretty large discrepancy and suggests that factors specific to Ireland were at work.
I would say that you are attempting to make the data fit your conclusion. It is entirely plausible that the Supreme Court ruling just happened to coincide with the peak in the global total of Nigerian asylum applications.Gobán Saor wrote: »The coincidence in timing between the drop off in numbers and the Supreme Court ruling in January 2003 and the Citizenship referendum in 2004 is strongly suggestive of a causal link.0 -
Gobán Saor wrote: »Which in turn is strongly supportive of the hypothesis that a lot of Nigerian asylum seeking was driven by factors other than fear of persecution. In other words, bogus.
Lets assume for a moment that your hypothesis is correct. We can thus exclude approximately 10% of the 2002 applicants as being bogus on the grounds of the loophole which was closed.
That leaves 90% of the applicants prior to the change in the system, and 100% of applicants post change. This would still leave Ireland as the largest recipient of asylum seekers, and we've ruled out the one identifiable rule that was the cause of bogus asylum seeking.
You appear to be suggesting that we can reasonably assume that some other large percentage of these Nigerian asylum seekers are availing of other loopholes...and that no other nation in the world is generating refugees smart enough to see them. Not only that, but you don't seem to be showing what these loopholes are, nor explaining why it is only Nigerians who see them.
I would suggest that there is a degree of "tarring with the same brush" here.
You've made exactly the correlation==causation assumption that I pointed out would be precipitous given the data, and then gone further and concluded that because we can infer this causation for approximately 10% of the asylum seekers, we can assume that similar causation must be there for some untold additional percentage.
As you said...the joys of statistics. You'll notice that neither I nor djpbarry have tried to say that the statistics exhonerate anyone...merely that they fall significantly short of condemning anyone. I would suggest that we are not abusing the idea of statistical analysis in this regard. On the other hand, you are taking the same sparsity of data and arguing that they "strongly suggest" a causal link...and don't appear to be limiting yourself to the already-eliminated, historical group to whom those statistics apply.0 -
Bring on the pie charts!
0 -
If she entered the country illegally, she should be deported.
If there is A Genuine reason why she did do so, and it can be proven that she/her children were at risk if they had applied. then her case should be considered.0 -
agent smith wrote: »If she entered the country illegally, she should be deported.
If there is A Genuine reason why she did do so, and it can be proven that she/her children were at risk if they had applied. then her case should be considered.
it was considered, first by the refugee application comissioner then by the refugee appeals tribunal. both (ahemm) independent of the minister for justice (b*ll**** cough cough)
making a case to the high court is not an appeal of the decision. (in refugee matters that is - sorry to sound patronising if you know this already) the high court will decide on how the decision came about and if, in the event a deportation order has been issued, hd such deportation order been issued in accordance with section 3 of the immigration act 1999 as amended. what will be considered is, was the decision makers correct in applying the various tests (eg in credibility, plausibility, benefit of doubt, etc) and make appropirate consideration to international law, such as the echr correctly.
she has had their case considered. and her case was or will be further considered by the minister (who has ultimate say in the end) via subsidiary protection & leave to remain application (again a decision which may be subject to judicial review)0 -
Its been stated she applied for a UK residenceIs she? Where else has she applied for asylum other than Ireland?
Illegal in parts , Like I said she shoulkd leave the parts where it is.Again, I don’t think she is “roaming Europe” and her “sad-luck story” (which involved the death of her child, by the way) has been accepted by the court. As has already been stated, FGM is illegal in parts of Nigeria, but the law is not being widely enforced.
The principal is the same , I asked the question here that is Nigeria incapable as a country of defending this woman and her daughters I dont believe it is.So what’s the point in having an asylum process at all?
Well, we’re not talking about Ireland, are we? From the US Federal Research Division:
There are also plenty of human rights abuses detailed in Amnesty’s 2007 report.
Actually, plenty of people complain about the aid given by the West to Africa. Take this thread for example. Or how about that mainstay of liberty and happiness, Kevin Myers.
Yes but like immigration to the west we do to little to fix the problem.
I like the Kevin Myers Article it is very true there was widespread anger over imported Chinese workers in Zambia recently.
Africa has huge issues and yes a lot steamed from colonial presences the last century. But the answer is not the widespread accepting off every poor soul that makes it out alive to european/US shores. fact is even if the colonys never happened africa would have been ignited by private enterprise or someone else. Unless it had developed at the same rate as the northern hemisphere.
This woman kids may be hurt by FGM however in the the time it takes me to write this hundreds of african children will die of hunger , malaria , maramus , kwashikor(malnutrition) , war and in short poverty. Essentially is a child in danger of dying from poverty worth more than this ladys kids.
The cost of this womans legal battle alone could save a small village for a few years. Never mind her detention and deportation.
In short we are pi**ing on a bushfire .... and we have no idea how to fix it only ideas how not to.Again, do you have evidence to show that system is being widely abused? Are there people being recognised as refugees who should not be?
What do I get if I prove it... as it has been proved to me on these boards in the past? I will answer this part later.0 -
finding evidence that the asylum list was widely abused? well widely might be a strong word, but check out thoose stats again, from either the dept or orac.ie
now look at the period of 1998-2002 when the rule on irish citzen child was different to that of now, now check how many cases for asylum were WITHDRAWN within 2 -4 months of arrival in favour of applying for leave to remain on the basis of ibc, co-incidently the applicant being heavily pregant and giving birth as much as one week of arrival! alterntively check out the facts from many cases which can be found at courts.ie
the whole purpose of entering was to apply for asylum becuase they feared or had being persecuted in their home country - the asylum process was Not a convienant way to enter the state without the relevant visas etc in order t give birth -of coure this now has all changed.hy would someone who claims to have being persecuted withdraw their case - particularily when one would have to wait over 6 months for a decision in relation to their leave to remain application
i will get the figures and facts and references to back up my comment asap0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed she did. She applied for a UK visa (in 2004 I think) and then she applied for asylum in Ireland in 2005; two very different things. I don't think that constitutes "hopping from one country to another telling hard luck stories."Its been stated she applied for a UK residence
As far as I am aware, she did relocate within Nigeria before leaving for Ireland, but her husband's family still made several attempts to abduct her daughters.Illegal in parts , Like I said she shoulkd leave the parts where it is.
Based on the reports that I have already quoted, it seems that laws are not being enforced and human rights abuses are widespread. So, to answer your question, no, it does not seem that the Nigerian authorities are willing and/or capable of defending it's citizens.The principal is the same , I asked the question here that is Nigeria incapable as a country of defending this woman and her daughters I dont believe it is.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement; I don't know what "problem" you are referring to or why you liken it to immigration.Yes but like immigration to the west we do to little to fix the problem.
It is not as widespread as you make out. Taking the example of Nigeria; in 2005, UNHCR estimated that there were approximately 22,000 Nigerian refugees in various nations around the world. Cameroon had the largest number (approx. 9,700), so that leaves 12,300 for the rest of the world. Now, it is quite likely that some of that number were located in African countries other than Cameroon (e.g. South Africa), but for argument's sake, let's assume that they were all located in either the US or the EU.But the answer is not the widespread accepting off every poor soul that makes it out alive to european/US shores.
Now, in 2007, the UN estimated Nigeria's population at 147 MILLION. That means that the number of Nigerian refugees in the US & EU combined represents, at most, approximately 0.008% of the Nigerian population; that's 8 in every 100,000. Just to put that figure in prespective, about the same percentage of the Irish population were killed in road accidents in 2006.
Based on these figures, I don't think it can be argued that Nigerians are leaving their homeland en masse and applying for asylum in other countries.
I am not in the business of putting a price on a human life. By all means, we should be doing everything we can to improve living standards for everyone all over the world, but I think that discussion is for another thread.This woman kids may be hurt by FGM however in the the time it takes me to write this hundreds of african children will die of hunger , malaria , maramus , kwashikor(malnutrition) , war and in short poverty. Essentially is a child in danger of dying from poverty worth more than this ladys kids.
And what do you suppose could be done with the money needed to keep this website up and running? Or how about that computer you're using?The cost of this womans legal battle alone could save a small village for a few years. Never mind her detention and deportation.
As you say, this particular loophole has now been closed. I think it is stretching it to say that there are large numbers of people being wrongly recognised as refugees in this country at present (I am not saying that you have said this). If anything, based on the numbers who are granted asylum on appeal, I would say that there are large numbers who have legitimate cases who are being refused asylum by the first instance committee.walrusgumble wrote: »now look at the period of 1998-2002 when the rule on irish citzen child was different to that of now, now check how many cases for asylum were WITHDRAWN within 2 -4 months of arrival in favour of applying for leave to remain on the basis of ibc, co-incidently the applicant being heavily pregant and giving birth as much as one week of arrival!0 -
It is time to stop our tax payments going to asylum seekers. It is time our tax improved our local health, education and transport services.
They can use the millions they are raking in on us Non-EU's who are charged for work permits and GNIB card fees for all I care.
Also they could cut down on social welfare fees if they let prospective Asylum seekers work...instead of consistantly denying their rights and the government ignoring their treaty obligations.0 -
Absolutely. Big, big cost-cutting measure right there that benefits both the state and the applicant. From The Irish Refugee Council:Also they could cut down on social welfare fees if they let prospective Asylum seekers work...
But of course, we all know what would happen if asylum seekers were allowed to work and pay their way... :rolleyes:Ireland and Denmark, uniquely, have opted out of this year's EU-wide 'Reception Directive' which includes proposals granting (limited) access to employment to asylum seekers in the asylum process.0 -
djpbarry wrote:Indeed she did. She applied for a UK visa (in 2004 I think) and then she applied for asylum in Ireland in 2005; two very different things. I don't think that constitutes "hopping from one country to another telling hard luck stories."
Fair enough It not exactly europe hoping but surely if she wanted to go to the UK and applied for residence fair enough. But what I dont like is failed resident applicants turning the Asylum processyou must agree that nots what its for. As far as I am concerned if you need to claim Asylum the airport when you first land is the place to do it.djpbarry wrote:As far as I am aware, she did relocate within Nigeria before leaving for hIreland, but her husband's family still made several attempts to abduct her daughters.
Granted but relocating agian is perfectly viable, Nigeria has 140 million people in it thats a lot of hay for one needle.djpbarry wrote:Based on the reports that I have already quoted, it seems that laws are not being enforced and human rights abuses are widespread. So, to answer your question, no, it does not seem that the Nigerian authorities are willing and/or capable of defending it's citizens.
By that defination every Nigerian citizen could flee the country and claim asylum.I have no idea what you mean by this statement; I don't know what "problem" you are referring to or why you liken it to immigration.
Irelands immigration issue was not addressed by the Irish & EU goverment as well as several issues in Africa where not addressed by the OAU or UN.
Granted steps have been taken , example is the tightening of immigration lwas and the deployment of EU resources along the Libyan border.
This case is a direct result of those stepsdjpbarry wrote:It is not as widespread as you make out. Taking the example of Nigeria; in 2005, UNHCR estimated that there were approximately 22,000 Nigerian refugees in various nations around the world. Cameroon had the largest number (approx. 9,700), so that leaves 12,300 for the rest of the world. Now, it is quite likely that some of that number were located in African countries other than Cameroon (e.g. South Africa), but for argument's sake, let's assume that they were all located in either the US or the EU.
Now, in 2007, the UN estimated Nigeria's population at 147 MILLION. That means that the number of Nigerian refugees in the US & EU combined represents, at most, approximately 0.008% of the Nigerian population; that's 8 in every 100,000. Just to put that figure in prespective, about the same percentage of the Irish population were killed in road accidents in 2006.
Ok but this is a reflection of the policy I am avocating and not your side of the agrument with respect. A let up in strict immigration policy would raise the figures.
Here are the figures for Refugee status as you can see
Yr
2000 605
2001 940
2002 1,992
2003 1,173
2004 1,138
2005 966
However the last census Irish figures stated that on census night , plus I doubt many illegals declared there presence.
There where 15556 Nigerians in ireland , granted even if half the approx 8742 where legal then it leaves another 4000 in immigration limbo.Based on these figures, I don't think it can be argued that Nigerians are leaving their homeland en masse and applying for asylum in other countries.
I would say the cost of the trip is a greater barrier. But as time has shown that changesdjpbarry wrote:I am not in the business of putting a price on a human life. By all means, we should be doing everything we can to improve living standards for everyone all over the world, but I think that discussion is for another thread.
AgreedAnd what do you suppose could be done with the money needed to keep this website up and running? Or how about that computer you're using?
Mass consumerism in the first world drives technology and progress allowing time, resources and effort to assist the third. If you want to find my last PC its in a school in the Luapula Province. My piont was that unnecessary asylum trials are a waste of resources and I would like to see the funds go somewhere productive even to boost local industry.
However we digress again and yes it was my faultAs you say, this particular loophole has now been closed. I think it is stretching it to say that there are large numbers of people being wrongly recognised as refugees in this country at present (I am not saying that you have said this). If anything, based on the numbers who are granted asylum on appeal, I would say that there are large numbers who have legitimate cases who are being refused asylum by the first instance committee.
The Irish refugee council stats backs this up however, I would say there still are large number applying that do not have legitimate cases.
In essence I do not see the need for this woman to be here especially when she appears to be a failed economic migrant to the UK.
Here are her routes of access to ireland ,if she qualifies she should be welcomed. If not she should be sent home.
http://www.workpermit.com/ireland/ireland.htm0 -
-
As long as we allow those of the Jewish faith to mutilate their male children who are we to question the religious practices of another country?0
-
My piont was that unnecessary asylum trials are a waste of resources and I would like to see the funds go somewhere productive even to boost local industry.
Then maybe you should quit bitching about the foreignors and start in on Lenihan who directs his underlings to deny people their rights in the first place.
I won't even get started on how he's wasting our tax money on his attempt to screw all us who are legally here and clog up the courts needlessly.The Irish refugee council stats backs this up however, I would say there still are large number applying that do not have legitimate cases.
That's a big fat ol ass um ption. Kinda like Lenihan saying that the majority of Non-EU's are marrying EU's to flout immigration laws. His evidence...the length of the marriage.In essence I do not see the need for this woman to be here especially when she appears to be a failed economic migrant to the UK.
She's here because one of her kids was killed in her home country by people that her government are un willing or unable to stop. Seems a pretty straightforward reason to me.Here are her routes of access to ireland ,if she qualifies she should be welcomed. If not she should be sent home.
http://www.workpermit.com/ireland/ireland.htm
Contrary to what you might believe all us foreignors are not here to be indentured servants. It's maybe what you want but tough ****.0 -
I'm not sure what you're getting at? I understand that she was granted a 2-year UK visa in 2004. It was her intention to relocate to the UK, but had second thoughts upon realising her husband had relatives there. More on this here.Fair enough It not exactly europe hoping but surely if she wanted to go to the UK and applied for residence fair enough. But what I dont like is failed resident applicants turning the Asylum processyou must agree that nots what its for.
And as far as I am aware, this is exactly what she did, or so say Independent news.As far as I am concerned if you need to claim Asylum the airport when you first land is the place to do it...
Put yourself in her position and tell me which is likely to be safer: relocating within the country or leaving the country? Bear in mind that the authorities seem either unwilling or unable to protect your children.Granted but relocating agian is perfectly viable, Nigeria has 140 million people in it thats a lot of hay for one needle.
If every single citizen in the country was being abused in some way, then yes, they could. But that is obviously not the case.By that defination every Nigerian citizen could flee the country and claim asylum.
I honestly don’t have a clue what you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's irrelevant, because we’re not talking about immigration here.Irelands immigration issue was not addressed by the Irish & EU goverment as well as several issues in Africa where not addressed by the OAU or UN.
Granted steps have been taken , example is the tightening of immigration lwas and the deployment of EU resources along the Libyan border.
This case is a direct result of those steps
No it wouldn't. You do understand the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker, don't you?A let up in strict immigration policy would raise the figures.
Again, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. What does the number of Nigerian immigrants in Ireland have to do with Pamela Izevbekhai's asylum application?However the last census Irish figures stated that on census night , plus I doubt many illegals declared there presence.
There where 15556 Nigerians in ireland , granted even if half the approx 8742 where legal then it leaves another 4000 in immigration limbo.
Across the border to Cameroon? I wouldn't say it is that expensive.I would say the cost of the trip is a greater barrier....
Indeed they are. If the applications were properly assessed first time around, then many of the appeals would be unnecessary. For example, over the 6-year period 2000 - 2005 (inclusive), 6,814 individuals were recognised as refugees in Ireland, but approximately 60% were recognised on appeal. That's a ridiculously high "error" rate.My piont was that unnecessary asylum trials are a waste of resources...
There are large numbers applying who are being refused, yes. But, as I have just illustrated, there are large numbers being refused who have genuine cases.The Irish refugee council stats backs this up however, I would say there still are large number applying that do not have legitimate cases.
I think it is quite obvious to anyone why she feels she "needs" to be here. I'm not sure she could be classed as a failed economic migrant - she was successful in obtaining a UK visa, was she not? Not to mention the fact that she had a pretty decent job in Lagos, based on what I have read.In essence I do not see the need for this woman to be here especially when she appears to be a failed economic migrant to the UK.
Fair point, although I don't believe the practice of FGM is specific to any one religious group.As long as we allow those of the Jewish faith to mutilate their male children who are we to question the religious practices of another country?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This is a ridiculous statement , seeking asylum is a form of immigration immigration.
Immigration and asylum are exclusive terms when it comes to these discussions. If you don't understand why I suggest you go look it up somewhere or read back through older immigration threads.
I won't be allowing this or any thread to be derailed by an issue that anyone partaking in a debate on the matter, should understand fully.
ie. I'll be locking this thread or deleting posts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement