Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd say that would be the most appropriate description, though if the distinction is important to your (or another's) point for whatever reason I'd suggest making the distinction.

Usual small print that you'll read and almost no-one else will need or want to: While a list exists covering most of the terms needed for preciseness, "immigrants" tends to be a subset of itself in general language (in a simple sense, everyone from somewhere else who's here legally is an immigrant, plus some who are here illegally but that isn't how people generally use the term). Technically the group you're referring to is legally called "persons given leave to remain", although this isn't in the list of terms I linked to for some reason. I would be surprised if anyone bothered using the term and the distinction only arises in a post-grant legal sense in a tiny number of circumstances. There's also the smaller category of people who successfully appeal under the subsidiary protection rule (see S.I. No. 518 of 2006), who don't fall into either category and technically need their own group name. I try to regard language as something that should be as simple as possible except for circumstances where it needs to be more precise or complicated, I think that's reasonable advice.

zap27

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.

You are a complete and utter tool.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

zap27 wrote: »

You are a complete and utter tool.

Banned for, eh, idiocy I suppose.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you any evidence that they "spotlighted Ireland" or is this more conjecture on your part?
Filing an application for asylum gave the applicant time to stay in the country until he or she had become the parent of an Irish citizen child.

It is known that Nigerian women who were illegal immigrants in other European countries traveled to Ireland while pregnant and filed asylum petitions here, with the intention of gaining European citizenship for themselves and their children

.
Have you any evidence for this or is this just even more conjecture on your part?

As stated by the Nigerian Embassy in Dublin, most Nigerian asylum seekers to Ireland are in fact economic migrants.

And what they say is automatically true is it?
It is to their advantage and Europe's to peddle that story.

The Irish Independent has even uncovered stories of so-called refugees who now travel (via Northern Ireland and the UK) back to the countries from which they allegedly fled in fear of their lives.

Do you agree with all II stories or just the ones you like?

I have no doubt that there are bona fide asylum seekers who come from Nigeria to Ireland. However, finding them at this point is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Our courts recognize only a tiny percentage of Nigerian applications as having merit.

But that's because Nigeria is an upstanding state and has "adequate protections" against persecution. Well atleast the protocols theyve signed lead us to believe this, anyway. (sarcastic tone here)

Sorry but your explanation is without substantiation and therefore merit. It is completely based on conjecture and has no coherency.
Your assumption that asylum seekers hear of safe countries to word of mouth is probably correct and is the reason many Nigerians come to Ireland.
Word of mouth is also the reason that nearly all Italian restaurant owners in Ireland can be traced to the one town in Italy by the way.

the_syco

T runner wrote:

As stated by the Nigerian Embassy in Dublin, most Nigerian asylum seekers to Ireland are in fact economic migrants.

So, they are saying that the asylum seekers aren't really asylum seekers, but are trying to illegally circumvent our border, so that they can work here illegally?

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

T runner said...

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".

Which she is legally entitled to or have I missed something?

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.

The question I asked was why did you have a go at us:

"nice Christian Irish folk" providing an "Irish Christmas" for the poor oul fearful Nigerians....

However in the interim,a degree of publicity and manipulation has surrounded the entire procedure which has effectively neutered the decisions of the Judiciary.

Have you any evidence to substantaite this wild claim? Which decisions exactly were neutered?

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.

How does your following quote here rate on the emotive responses scale?
(Again you failed to answer this. Did it not suit you?)

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....

T runner

the_syco wrote: »

So, they are saying that the asylum seekers aren't really asylum seekers, but are trying to illegally circumvent our border, so that they can work here illegally?

I dont know what you mean there, youll need to clarify.

Donegalfella made the original quote BTW.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats it. Thats your proof????
The thesis of a student who quotes one Nigerian woman?

Have you anything more?

See above. Many of the Nigerians who entered Ireland between 1996 and 2004 filed petitions for asylum in order to avoid deportation until their babies had been born on Irish soil.

A students thesis is not substantiation is it?
Unless you have anything lese it remains conjecture on your part.

Sorry, but when only 18 out of more than 1,500 Nigerian asylum petitions are found by our own courts to have merit, it adds credibility to the assertion that many so-called asylum seekers from Nigeria are are merely "chancing their arm."

Or it adds to the more likely possibility that it suits western governments to buy into the Nigerians "adequate state protections " story.

Are you accusing the Independent of lying? Are you accusing our own immigration authorities of lying?

So if you dont believe every story that a newspaper peddles you are automatically accusing them of lying? You havent agreed with all Independent stories on this thread. Are you accusing them of lying?

When have I accused the immigration authorities of lying?

My explanation is supported by academic research into the subject; it is also supported by the records of our courts, and by statistics collected by our government.

You have supported it with one students thesis. Did he pass his thesis by the way?

This doesn't explain why our relatively tiny country of 4 million people has become the number one destination in the world for Nigerian asylum seekers. One could name lots of other countries around the world that are every bit as "safe" as Ireland—but they don't attract Nigerian asylum seekers in the same numbers.

But it does. What country is the number one destination for Rwandans? Why?

Every country has to have a most frequent destination. I don't see your point, frankly.

Yes, but the difference is that Italians are members of the EU and can thus migrate legally and seamlessly to Ireland.

No EU when those families moved here I'm afraid.
Word of mouth meant that they all came from the same town, which was the point.

Word of mouth will probably be the reasons why most Rwandans favour a certain country also.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

I`m not sure if "wild" does it justice,but I would have thought that...
(a) having had her initial application turned down.
(b)Having her subsequent appeal also fail
(c)Having a Judicial Review deliver a negative verdict just about exhausts the legal means of attaining the status Ms Izevbekhai and her supporters desire.

The decisions,cold and legalistic as they may be were reached after due process in what we are led to believe is a free and fair Judicial system.

Since those initial judgements the profile of Ms Izevbakhai`s case has increased exponentially until it now appears any objective consideration of the facts may well be impossible....That situation is I freely admit a Wild one indeed.

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....

Now that Christmas is out of the way perhaps the "emotive" accessorizing can indeed be put aside to allow the Judiciary to reach/consider/reconsider/re-reconsider/overturn the original findings in the light of the many and varied high-profile socio-political appeals/interventions and opinions.

Thats it. Thats your proof????
The thesis of a student who quotes one Nigerian woman?

Have you anything more?

I think T runner is being a wee bit harsh in dismissing this chap Komolafe`s work in such a perfunctory manner.

It seems to me that his thesis manages to answer at least some questions about the Nigerian affiliation with The Irish Republic as a favoured destination.
Who would have thought that our close relationship with John Bull might be at the seat of it all...:)

The reality is that Pam Izevbekhai`s case is now the preserve of the scriptwriter,with Roddy Doyle`s involvement perhaps the best example yet of Art imitating Life.
For some,such as myself,the greater issue is where Ireland now puts yet more of it`s Laws which for whatever reason it cannot or will not be seen to uphold. :eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

(c)Having a Judicial Review deliver a negative verdict just about exhausts the legal means of attaining the status Ms Izevbekhai and her supporters desire.
The decisions,cold and legalistic as they may be were reached after due process in what we are led to believe is a free and fair Judicial system.

You are forgetting her judicial hearing in January and also her ECHR hearing.
Is she not entitled to these?

Since those initial judgements the profile of Ms Izevbakhai`s case has increased exponentially until it now appears any objective consideration of the facts may well be impossible....That situation is I freely admit a Wild one indeed.

So you are saying that the courts and ECHR cannot now objectively consider the facts of this case?
Are news reports from Irish papers etc that contribute to this profile now admissable as evidence in this case?

Now that Christmas is out of the way perhaps the "emotive" accessorizing can indeed be put aside to allow the Judiciary to reach/consider/reconsider/re-reconsider/overturn the original findings in the light of the many and varied high-profile socio-political appeals/interventions and opinions.

I hope this also means your own language will be objective in your comments henceforth. Accusing others of using emotive tactics when you use them yourself is hypocrisy.

I think T runner is being a wee bit harsh in dismissing this chap Komolafe`s work in such a perfunctory manner.

It seems to me that his thesis manages to answer at least some questions about the Nigerian affiliation with The Irish Republic as a favoured destination.

His work says some Nigerians may have used their Irish child deliberatly to gain residence.

We know that there are some people of all nationalities who abuse systems. Nothing new here and I fail to see how this answers any of the questions about Nigerians choosing Ireland.

The deductive argument that all Nigerians abuse the system and therefore Pamela Izenbaiea does has been refuted before.

The reality is that Pam Izevbekhai`s case is now the preserve of the scriptwriter

Incorrect. It remains to be decided by the judiciary, ECHR and perhaps the supreme court. It is not the preserve of scriptwriters (or drama queens thank God).


The seminal Fornah case in the UK, which was the precedent in the UK for an asylum case based on fear of FGM had to go all the way to the House of Lords before being ruled in her favour.

The Irish equivalent needs to run its course.

(Please try and substantiate points you make in future: I wont reply otherwise.)

dodgyme

T runner wrote: »

Have you any evidence that they "spotlighted Ireland" or is this more conjecture on your part?.

I was in nigeria during this period and I have mentioned before that they did spotlight Ireland. I have mentioned this before on other threads. Everyone in my company knew this as did the people who worked back and forth from lagos at the time, but I know my word is not good enough for you but then again I dont think any evidence would be good enough for you. At the end of the day you can believe what you want. An extended period in Lagos would soon change your mind.

Also you never need have set foot in lagos to question why so many from a country that had no direct flights to Ireland all end up coming here. They all had the same map and only one country on it.???.

T runner

dodgyme wrote: »

I was in nigeria during this period and I have mentioned before that they did spotlight Ireland. I have mentioned this before on other threads. Everyone in my company knew this as did the people who worked back and forth from lagos at the time, but I know my word is not good enough for you but then again I dont think any evidence would be good enough for you. At the end of the day you can believe what you want. An extended period in Lagos would soon change your mind.

Also you never need have set foot in lagos to question why so many from a country that had no direct flights to Ireland all end up coming here. They all had the same map and only one country on it.???.

The all end up in Ireland through Word Of Mouth.

You are incorrect to deduce that no evidence "would be good enough" for me based on something you have stated without evidence.

Try substatiating your points with reliable referenced evidence before making that erroneous statement.


How this this relate to the asylum case we are discussing exactly?

dodgyme

T runner wrote: »

The all end up in Ireland through Word Of Mouth..?

Yes that is part of it, is word of mouth good for nothing in your philosophy?. The internet and organised meeting in hotels in lagos also helps. People that you work with may help also and the odd forged letter of invitation to use as a beer mat on the way over as you go. Are you saying that nigerians are not capable of networking or at worst scamming.

T runner wrote: »

Try substatiating your points with reliable referenced evidence before making that erroneous statement.?

whats erroneous?

T runner wrote: »

How this this relate to the asylum case we are discussing exactly?

I was replying to a single point that you asked donegal fella. you asked him what evidence he had as if he spends his evenings looking for evidence for you on a particualar topic. :rolleyes:

If I got 20 people from the company I worked for to sit in your house and tell you the experiences that we would mull over on our way doing our jobs, you would still say that is was not evidence. Groups of Nigerians targetted ireland in a calculated way, propogated by ... yes ... word of mouth and networking. I know it is a bitter pill for you to swallow. I was innocent to it all once also, its ok.!

T runner

dodgyme wrote: »

I was replying to a single point that you asked donegal fella. you asked him what evidence he had as if he spends his evenings looking for evidence for you on a particualar topic. :rolleyes:

Donegalfella has often asked me to substantiate a statement and vice versa.

I wont be answering any more of your conjecture without substantiation.

AlekSmart

I wont be answering any more of your conjecture without substantiation.

Looks like this thread is in for a long period of (unsubstantiated) silence in 2009 so.... :P

It`s all good clean fun though and the ability of Boards.ie and the greater Internet to bear the weight of opinionated and robust discussion,even if unsubstantiated,will shine through in the end....

Pam Izevbekhai`s case is pretty much irrelevant now as it cannot be any more than a set-piece for the great-people on both sides......:)

Let`s see what 2009 brings along !!

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Looks like this thread is in for a long period of (unsubstantiated) silence in 2009 so.... :P

I think thats a misjudgement. Most people here who seem to have conviction of their opinions try and back up anything they claim is a fact with some substantiating evidence.

It`s all good clean fun though and the ability of Boards.ie and the greater Internet to bear the weight of opinionated and robust discussion,even if unsubstantiated,will shine through in the end....

I'm all for discussion and opinion, but if you state something as a fact you should be able to back it up if you want people to take it seriously or believe you.

Someone whos posts consists of: I was in the capital of Nigeria and I witnessed conspiracies to defraud the Irish taxpayer on a massive scale, probably needs more substantiation before Im going to believe them (cant speak for yourself). Its up to me if I chose to reply to posts like that and its up to me if I chose to let the poster know of my reasons for not replying.

It wasnt really an attack on Boards.ie or the Internet ot free speech.
No real need for the happy hor****e about the internet shining through in the end.

Pam Izevbekhai`s case is pretty much irrelevant now as it cannot be any more than a set-piece for the great-people on both sides......:)Let`s see what 2009 brings along

!!

My opinion is that its not irrelevant. If, as i suspect, the revenue commisioners have got it wrong this time: then an overturning of the decision, hopefully in the supreme court, will turn the spotlight back on Nigerias enforcement of their "State Protections" and may indirectly help many Nigerian women on the ground over there. Hardly irrelevant?

I do take the point about outside interference by politicians for political gain.
If the decision is overturned by someone with the power to do so outside the courts I would hope that it would be for the right reason and would be accompanied by changes as to how FGM cases atleast are handled here (as happened in the UK after Fornah.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Show me how this source substantiated your ridiculopus argument that most Nigerian immigrants are here to abuse the system?

You need to make sure the evidence you present proves the point you are trying to make.

I seem to remember you also refusing evidence that there was no pre-emptive protection for people fearing FGM in Nigeria.
This evidence was inconvenient for you, as it showed that state protections were in fact inadequate in Nigeria.

You also used the emotive "floodgates" argument many, many times that granting asylum in this case would be a precedent for thousands of Nigerian women to swamp the country.
When I showed with evidence that the only precedent for this case was the seminal Fornah case in the UK in 2006 after which there has been only 1 successful asylum application for fear opf FGM there since, you seemed to have a little difficulty accepting this also.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dont think so.

Although she has been accused of many things on this thread without substantiation by some, including conducting an interview on a national paper to deliberately try and get a birthday party for one of her children`(!!!!!) and proving herself to be a bogus asylum seeker by fighting her case so hard!!!!!!!!!!

sceptre

T runner wrote: »

Dont think so.

Although she has been accused of many things on this thread without substantiation by some, including conducting an interview on a national paper to deliberately try and get a birthday party for one of her children`(!!!!!) and proving herself to be a bogus asylum seeker by fighting her case so hard!!!!!!!!!!

So what do the revenue commissioners have to do with her case then?

the_syco

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m not sure if "wild" does it justice,but I would have thought that...
(a) having had her initial application turned down.
(b)Having her subsequent appeal also fail
(c)Having a Judicial Review deliver a negative verdict just about exhausts the legal means of attaining the status Ms Izevbekhai and her supporters desire

Was this when the judge was replaced with someone else? Wonder will the new judge roll over and let her in?

T runner wrote: »

The all end up in Ireland through Word Of Mouth.

Never heard of that airline before. Because if they didn't get here by one plane, they are illegal asylum seekers, for not claiming refuge in the first country they came to?

sceptre

the_syco wrote: »

Never heard of that airline before. Because if they didn't get here by one plane, they are illegal asylum seekers, for not claiming refuge in the first country they came to?

Oh good lord, and we even put a sticky thread in the forum so people could be edumicated about that little fallacy.

T runner

sceptre wrote: »

So what do the revenue commissioners have to do with her case then?

Nothing, I accidentally typed it: It should have read "refugee" commissioners.

sceptre

T runner wrote: »

Nothing, I accidentally typed it: It should have read "refugee" commissioners.

Ah, that sentence makes more sense now, thanks.