Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

HollyB

balanced view wrote: »

They clearly state thet the "best interests of children is paramount".
This belief seems to have been ignored by the decision-makers in this case.

There's a difference between being granted leave to remain being in the best interest of the child and the child needing leave to remain for fear of persecution if they are returned to their home country - a difference summed up in the case regarding Great Agbonlahor.

Obviously, he would have had access to a better education and better support for his special needs had he remained in Ireland but is his life actually in danger due to his condition in Nigeria? I would certainly hope that nobody has attempted to murder or torture the child because of his special needs. His condition may not be understood, and there may not be the kind of educational support he needs there - a problem that other parents with children with special needs must face in that country - but that doesn't necessarily translate to a well-founded fear of persecution.

It could be argued that returning to Ireland would be in his best interests for educational reasons and healthcare reasons but that doesn't necessarily mean that he has a valid claim for asylum on the basis that he will be persecuted if he is not allowed to return.

In the Izevbekhai case, the courts have to look at whether the girls are in danger of FGM being performed on them against the wishes of the parents, whether there is adequate protection available to them from the Nigerian police, etc, and whether relocation is possible. It's not a clear cut case of which country the children are better off in, it's about whether or not they are safe in their country of origin.

Eurosceptic2008

The FGM defence lacks credibility when you consider the map below, which shows the prevalence of FGM in Africa. The Green countries don't have a major prevalence of FGM. In that context, Ireland can't have been the first safe country she came through. Indeed she admits coming to Ireland through Amsterdam. In that context if we can't return her to Nigeria, we should return her to the Netherlands as under the Dublin Convention the first EU country is supposed to deal with asylym-cases. The Opposition has been too quick to believe this woman's claims, in spite of the fact her claim for asylum has been rejected. Could this have something to do with the large presence of the legal-profession in the Oireachtas? The legal-profession are making a mint from asylum through legal-aid paid for by us.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

... Ireland can't have been the first safe country she came through. Indeed she admits coming to Ireland through Amsterdam. In that context if we can't return her to Nigeria, we should return her to the Netherlands as under the Dublin Convention the first EU country is supposed to deal with asylym-cases.

Banned for a month.

AlekSmart

Begobs Eurosceptic2008,that was a lovely wee map.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

balanced view

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. That's exactly the point - these girls are most definitely safer here than in their country of origin, where there is no State action whatever to protect them from the definite persecution that awaits them if returned. Our decision-makers don't seem to accept this even though they do accept all the facts and evidence in this case are valid.
By the way she relocated three times within her own country but each time her husbands family found them and kept trying to kidnap her two daughters in order to carry out FGM on them. It was only then that she came to Ireland Jan 05 - almost 4 years ago and still waiting for the correct moral and legal answer.

balanced view

speedboatchase wrote: »

Regardless of her personal experiences, I think this case should be dealt with rationally.
The woman entered the country illegally and is an illegal immigrant. If the courts set a precedent and then 10 more ppl give the same excuse of FGM, should they all stay? Well, they're going to have to if we pass on her case.

So you think it's alright for us to ignore the death of her first girl and her fears that the same brutal act will be carried out on her next two girls?

What is the root of your fear of giving refuge to a two little girls in need of safety?

Where exactly is the well-founded fear that the Irish State has of "precedents" and "floodgates"?
Can you give me an example of previous "precedents" and "floodgates" of similar cases like these, because I don't know of any?

How rational is the thinking of the "decision-makers" judgements that it's ok to send these lambs back to the slaughter?

And you've never done anything illegal yourself ?

Sleep on it:)

balanced view

HollyB wrote: »

It's not a clear cut case of which country the children are better off in, it's about whether or not they are safe in their country of origin.

Thank you again, HollyB:)
In the Izevbekhai case, there is a definite threat of persecution, and previous experience of it, and three relocations in Nigeria to avoid it, before coming to Irealnd; and I am not getting involded in a completely different case which has other individual merits in it.
Let's just deal with each case at a time.
To finish, it is not safe to send the Izevbekhai's back to their country of origin because they have no "well- founded" protection to avail of.

AlekSmart

"all data are based on very uncertain estimates"!

At least the cartographer was honest.....

One of the most striking points about the Izevbekhai case is the numbers of people who appear to have an intimate factual knowledge of the womans movements in her home country.

By the way she relocated three times within her own country but each time her husbands family found them and kept trying to kidnap her two daughters in order to carry out FGM on them. It was only then that she came to Ireland Jan 05 - almost 4 years ago and still waiting for the correct moral and legal answer.

Unless those asserting these claims actually accompanied the lady and know for certain of these relocations then they are surely hearsay ?

I am happy that the relevant answer can only be arrived at if the Courts deliberate ONLY upon the facts of her case as presented and without the clamour which now surrounds every facet of her current position.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. That's exactly the point - these girls are most definitely safer here than in their country of origin, where there is no State action whatever to protect them from the definite persecution that awaits them if returned. Our decision-makers don't seem to accept this even though they do accept all the facts and evidence in this case are valid.

Again I`m somewhat overpowered by the definitive nature of this,I`m not at all sure that persecution of these young girls will be "definite" subsequent to any negative decision in this process.
There appears to be a marked reluctance to allow our "Decision Makers" to do their job in any professional manner without a great deal of emotive and largely unproven evidence being introduced.

How rational is the thinking of the "decision-makers" judgements that it's ok to send these lambs back to the slaughter?

And you've never done anything illegal yourself ?

Again the emotive issue very elequently put here largely deflects attention from the business at hand,namely the dry boring interpretation of the Law of the Land.

Mind you anybody arriving into Ireland and reading this in todays Irish Independent might be less willing to accept the Balanced View on Irelands attractivness after all.........

National News
Archbishop rounds on HSE and Government




Bishop of Cloyne John Magee has refused to talk to the media as pressure mounts on the former Vatican secretary to resign after a damning report into his handling of abuse allegations



Articles

* The arrogance of a prelate in denial
* Children put in danger
* Bishop in meeting to defuse row over sex abuse clergy
* Cloyne 'was only diocese not to follow procedures'
* Moral of this grim tale is a lesson in passing buck
* Out of Africa into a murky unknown, via Ireland
* Suicide scandal exposed




National News Home
Search Query: Independent.ie Web Search

By John Cooney and Ralph Riegel

Wednesday December 24 2008

The national system of child protection was close to collapse last night after the country's most senior churchman openly questioned the ability of the Government, the HSE and his fellow Catholic bishops to implement a single policy that safeguards children from clerical sexual abuse.

In his first public comment on the consequences arising from a church report into the failure of the Bishop of Cloyne John Magee to apply proper standards, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said he was "extremely concerned" at the fact that, within a purported "one-Church-policy", a wide diversity existed in the interpretation and application of agreed procedures.

The archbishop revealed he had already warned the Irish Bishops' Conference and the Church's National Board for Safeguarding Children that if serious doubts persisted concerning the coherence and consistency of approach, he would implement his own system of accountable child protection.

Failing

Archbishop Martin also rounded on the Government and the HSE for failing to publish a national audit of the extent of clerical rape of children in each diocese that was conducted after the State inquiry into the diocese of Ferns three years ago.

The archbishop also expressed his personal dismay that he did not know the audit's findings when he was approached by other bishops to take in religious orders and priests from other dioceses. He said he needed to know if other dioceses applied equally rigorous standards as he has in place.

The extraordinary broadside from the Primate of Ireland and former Vatican diplomat immediately escalated the crisis engulfing the beleaguered Bishop Magee, almost a week after the church's board indicted him of operating inadequate procedures that endangered children, especially in the national schools in the diocese of Cloyne.

Meanwhile, as Bishop Magee continued to refuse to meet the national media, the pressure on him to resign reached a new level of intensity last night.

Probe

The bishop now faces the grim prospect that at its first cabinet meeting in the new year, the Government will instruct the Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin Archdiocese to initiate a State probe into his management practices in Cloyne.

Children's Minister Barry Andrews announced last night that he intends to publish the findings of a separate but related study into Cloyne conducted by the HSE that is also expected to be critical of the diocesan handling of allegations of abuse against two clerics.

Speaking on RTE television last night, Archbishop Martin said that this report's findings could be crucial for Bishop Magee's future. It was up to him to decide whether or not to resign, but he should make a decision based on the best interests of child protection, advised Archbishop Martin.

Mr Andrews also disclosed that he had received the HSE diocesan audit and its findings would be ready for publication early in the new year.

Last night Bishop Magee was urged to resign sooner rather than later by Geoffrey Shannon, the Oireachtas reporter on child abuse.

Meanwhile, the Cloyne diocese would not confirm if Bishop Magee will follow his traditional practice of saying Christmas Mass in his Cathedral of St Colman, in Cobh.

The bishop's first public appearance since the scandal broke last Friday will be a major media event and could draw public protest. Earlier yesterday, Bishop Magee received a little Christmas cheer when some parishioners rallied to his defence and accused the media of waging a campaign against him.

- John Cooney and Ralph Riegel

Zambia

Oh look this thread is still going.

• I dont think what a nice person PI or how cute and well behaved her kids are males bugger all difference. These are not grounds to stay. There are millons of nice African women men kids on the planet
• PI has failed to convince the courts on successive occasions that the threat of FGM still exists as per her case. However she simply keeps moving venues courts and judges like attempts at a Rubic cube.

I hope PI returns safe to Nigeria and is able to live there and apply for immigration under the pionts system to Ireland (It was mentioned before she is skilled enough). In this regard I hope she is successful. In hindsight she should have used the safety of her 2 year visa in the UK to apply.

AlekSmart

A good point here and one perhaps not explored by many ?....

.I hope PI returns safe to Nigeria and is able to live there and apply for immigration under the pionts system to Ireland (It was mentioned before she is skilled enough).

Just to sideline for a moment,are there any figures available for asylum applications from Zimbabwean citizens ?

I ask this because I view their unfortunate plight as far more worthy of our largesse than the supposed deficiencies in Nigeria`s civil protections for its citizens.

It appears that ever since the Lancaster House agreement seeing off Rhodesia and putting Zimbabwe in it`s place the Wesht has been falling over itself to lick Bob Mugabe`s boots.

The level of poverty and decrepitude to which he has reduced the former "Breadbasket of Africa" is indeed criminal and most assuredly worthy of the attentions of the Guardian of Western Freedoms......(Mr Obama to the red telephone please....!)

Is it due to the Nigerian asylum machine being a better managed one,do they have a secret route which allows a free ride over established norms?

One thing is sure...our ambivalance to REAL curruption,persecution and threat to human life in Zimbabwe stands in mute opposition to our sweaty zeal over Nigeria`s alleged problems..???

rosarosa

AlekSmart wrote: »

A good point here and one perhaps not explored by many ?....

Just to sideline for a moment,are there any figures available for asylum applications from Zimbabwean citizens ?

I ask this because I view their unfortunate plight as far more worthy of our largesse than the supposed deficiencies in Nigeria`s civil protections for its citizens.


Is it due to the Nigerian asylum machine being a better managed one,do they have a secret route which allows a free ride over established norms?]

I have followed this discussion with some interest, being an immigrant myself....To shed a little light AlekSmart, there are many people here from Zimbabwe and I do interact with quite a few being from that part of the world myself. Without any disrespect for our friends from West Africa, I do think that there is a marked difference in attitudes from people from Southern Africa and those from the west. For example, not one of the Zimabweans I know has claimed asylum. It has as much to do with national pride as a genuine confusion as to why anyone not from the Sudan, Somalia or any other really troubled spot should apply for asylum. There is also, believe it or not, a real stigma associated with applying for asylum, or at least there is with Zimababweans and most other Southern African states.

Most Zimbabweans are quite highly educated and Ireland is a stop-off to make some money and wait for things to stabilise at home. The Zimbabwean bush war was very, very bloody and most are hopeful that thhings will begin to get better in about 10 years. I sincerely doubt many have long-term plans to stay. And that goes for most of the other people from that region whom I have met.

As for Pamela I, I have sympathy for her case, but cannot realistically see her asylum case being granted when she should have followed the proper channels in entering Ireland. It is frustrating as an African immigrant to see all the media attention and the like when many of us jumped through all the immigration hoops, work and pay taxes, etc......

AlekSmart

Thanks Rosarosa for that informative post.

I think it`s one of the few posts here on the individual Izevbekhai case or the wider issue which actually allows for internal differences between differing African tribes,traditions and countries.

There has been,I feel a suspension of reality in relation to much of our recent past in Immigration management.
Some persons have pointed to elements of Western African" predliction at the expense of directing resources towards other equally deserving areas of the Continent.
However when these voices have been raised the response has invariably been of the "Rascist" variety.

Most Zimbabweans are quite highly educated and Ireland is a stop-off to make some money and wait for things to stabilise at home. The Zimbabwean bush war was very, very bloody and most are hopeful that thhings will begin to get better in about 10 years. I sincerely doubt many have long-term plans to stay. And that goes for most of the other people from that region whom I have met.

The current Zimbabweian situation can be directly traced back to a fledgling African democracy (albeit a shaky one) Rhodesia-Zimbabwe not being afforded the robust levels of Western support to allow it to develop upon the world stage as an Independent entity.

As Roasrosa points out the long debilitating bush-war which led to the ascendancy of the Mugabe "faction" was as much due to the West`s Inaction as anything else.

I wonder just how many off-shore accounts Mr Mugabe and his retinue of bemedalled senior "Freedom Fighters" arfe currently maintaining whilst their subjects wheel home boxes of useless 5 Million Dollar notes.

Africa the continent and it`s many varied peoples and cultures should not simply be viewed as some jolly interesting social experiment to allow us "nice Christian Irish folk" to provide an "Irish Christmas" for the poor oul fearful Nigerians....
The reality of our current relations with the continent is one of decisions being driven by media frenzy rather than by cold reality...unseasonal though it maybe ?

the bolt

Mr.Micro wrote: »

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.

couldnt agree more,us irish went all over the world some legal some not so legal.some people have very short memories.way things are going we could be going again:(

Zambia

the bolt wrote: »

couldnt agree more,us irish went all over the world some legal some not so legal.some people have very short memories.way things are going we could be going again:(

I disagree with this statement while back in the old days when all you needed to arrive in america/canada/australia/europe etc was a smile and a travel ticket story times have changed.

Country's by demand of their citizens have tried to control access to their services and living space. As is the right of every country.

If indeed Ireland population does need to resort to mass Immigration (Due to reading the papers and believing the sky is actually f**king falling) again the lest that can be done is everyone should respect the laws of the country's they intend to migrate to.

If you rocked up in New York with your Kids and wife in tow these days expecting to live under the radar you can think again.

Someone earlier mentioned that the worked in a lab with a Nigerian who works legally chances are they went through a application process and succeeded. It a insult to them, that people can arrive and simply cry wolf at the airport and be allowed stay.

oscarBravo

Zambia232 wrote: »

If indeed Ireland population does need to resort to mass Immigration (Due to reading the papers and believing the sky is actually f**king falling) again the lest that can be done is everyone should respect the laws of the country's they intend to migrate to.

This thread is about asylum seeking, not immigration.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zambia

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is about asylum seeking, not immigration.

Simply answering the Bolts piont.

I remember my earlier warnings on the ludricous position that the two topics are not linked. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Zambia232 wrote: »

Simply answering the Bolts piont.

I remember my earlier warnings on the ludricous position that the two topics are not linked. :rolleyes:

Asylum seeking and immigration are two completely and utterly separate topics, much as it suits certain agendas to confuse the two. If you're not prepared to accept that fact, feel free not to post.

For clarity: this is a moderator instruction, and I won't be entertaining a discussion on the matter.

AlekSmart

Gulp Zambia232.....much and all as I am tending to incline in your direction on this issue it appears that it is now subject to a "Directive".

Oddly enough the distinction between Asylum and Immigration is one of the best understood in the country by Native and Visitor alike,but I digress ....and applaud Oscar Bravo for wishing to maintain this high level of comprehension. :pac: :pac:

Zambia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Asylum seeking and immigration are two completely and utterly separate topics, much as it suits certain agendas to confuse the two. If you're not prepared to accept that fact, feel free not to post.

For clarity: this is a moderator instruction, and I won't be entertaining a discussion on the matter.

Fair enough ...You have a nice day

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Thanks Rosarosa for that informative post.
Some persons have pointed to elements of Western African" predliction at the expense of directing resources towards other equally deserving areas of the Continent.However when these voices have been raised the response has invariably been of the "Rascist" variety.

What resources exactly are you referring to? "Asylum application" resources are directed to individual asylum seekers not to areas of continents.

Africa the continent and it`s many varied peoples and cultures should not simply be viewed as some jolly interesting social experiment to allow us "nice Christian Irish folk" to provide an "Irish Christmas" for the poor oul fearful Nigerians....

Are you referring to Pamela I and her children here?
If so you should know that the reason that her family will remain here is due to await the outcome of a hearing and to attend a review, so it is the Irish Courts and the ECHR you should have your go at and not the "nice Christian Irish folk".

not simply be viewed as some jolly interesting social experiment to allow us "nice Christian Irish folk" to provide an "Irish Christmas" for the poor oul fearful Nigerians....

This looks like language used to get an emotive response which you seem to deplore when it contradicts your argument.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you have yet to give a coherent answer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To your own question/s ofcourse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mick.fr

Pete4779 wrote: »

1. She and here children should be deported because I personally no longer can afford to keep feeding the voracious welfare appetite of the third world as it arrives in Ireland. This is what tax is. When you wonder why the hospitals, roads and education systems of taxpayers are so bad, no you know why: so many millions are tied up asylum and immigration costs. Next time some asylum seeker keeps appealing, gets costs, etc., awarded for a few hundred grand, remember that it means no ultrasound scanner, no CT scanner, no new social work team in your community. It is why there is no local breast cancer service. It is why there is no extra teacher to make the classes smaller.

2. Irish people went abroad to work and in conditions that had zero social welfare or support structures by the government. The equivalent would
be for her to remain and receive no social supports. The situations are not equivalent, or else Ireland would be claiming reparations from the UK for the lack of support during the famine the same as Israel gets support form Germany. We don't, and we didn't.

Do you realise you are blaming the foreigners for those issues that you describe?
Do you realise probably almost none of those foreigners are actually jobless and welfare dependent and that their PRSI/PAYE contributions actually help thousands and thousands of Irish families ?

The only people you see in the streets in Ireland are Irish people (Ok romanian kids/wifes aside, this is not a business, different issue), and those people are pretty young most of the time, in full posession of their mental and physical means.

Also there is thousands of single parents, non working with a few children, and the welfare is paying the rent and for the kids.

Ridiculous statement of yours I am sorry

sceptre

mick.fr wrote: »

Do you realise probably almost none of those foreigners are actually jobless and welfare dependent and that their PRSI/PAYE contributions actually help thousands and thousands of Irish families ?

Asylum seekers legally aren't allowed work. This thread is about asylum seekers (one in particular). OscarBravo highlighted this distinction in his moderator capacity just up the page. The post you're replying to is on-topic, regardless of whether you agree with it as the poster is talking about asylum seekers. Yours is not. Put it in a different thread (yes, that's a moderator instruction, treat it as such).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

T runner said...

Are you referring to Pamela I and her children here?
If so you should know that the reason that her family will remain here is due to await the outcome of a hearing and to attend a review, so it is the Irish Courts and the ECHR you should have your go at and not the "nice Christian Irish folk".

Nope T runner,I`m not referring to Ms Izevbekhai or her children in any personal sense at all but the fact remains that having had the benefit of the Irish Courts since 2005 the lady is now to "await the outcome of (another) hearing AND to attend a review".

If this length of deliberation can be taken as "normal" then the Irish Courts Service and the ECHR deserve to be had a go at..and hopefully they will accept this as my personal go at them.

AFAICS,The Irish Courts have afforded this case a very high degree of consideration and reflection.
However in the interim,a degree of publicity and manipulation has surrounded the entire procedure which has effectively neutered the decisions of the Judiciary.

This looks like language used to get an emotive response which you seem to deplore when it contradicts your argument.

I`m not sure that there exists any form of words for or against this topic (If not the individual case) that will NOT result in an emotive response of some sort.

The least emotive responses tend to come from the Judges hearing (or attempting to hear) these cases ON THEIR MERITS.

This dry legalistic stuff tends not to make great copy but of itself remains far more important than Civic Receptions or Opposition Party invitations to Parliamentary hospitality,both of which I feel come very close to being seen as attempting to influence or otherwise alter the course of justice (such as it is) :rolleyes: