Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

ParkRunner

Can't disagree with that Donegalfella. The times article quoted above hinted at the approach of the media to this story in the concluding paragraph.

"One in four cases do not make it past this stage, so her supporters are nervous. If the ECHR does not agree to hear the case, the Department of Justice is entitled to deport her. Izevbekhai’s supporters believe the state would charter a plane to bring the family back to Nigeria straight away. But if the case goes ahead in Europe then she will have yet another stay of at least a year, and newspaper picture editors in need of a heart-rending image will be able to relax for a while longer."

-boris

This business has gone beyond the grounds of farcical.Her deportation order was served years ago,yet she still remains in this country drawing on its resources.She continues to defy the state,which on the grounds of practicality has ordered her to be deported as if she was granted permission to stay,we would soon be inundated with similar cases,some genuine more bull****.common courtesy alone would dictate she accept the states decision,even if the law does provide for her seemingly endless spate of appeals.I personally find it quite infuriating that she has wasted thousands of euro of Irish taxpayers money,when our elderly are lieing unattended on hospital trolleys.This nothing short of a betrayal.

marcsignal

good post donegalfella

-boris wrote: »

I personally find it quite infuriating that she has wasted thousands of euro of Irish taxpayers money,when our elderly are lieing unattended on hospital trolleys.This nothing short of a betrayal.

+1

and all because she's having a barney with the Mother in Law :rolleyes:

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you're basing your statement on a sample size of 1 article written by a biased author.

Are all other stories sourced from this original article (if so, it would be referenced I assume) or is this the only article written?

If not, you're admittedly thorough and intelligent dissection of that article is akin to saying "Patrick is a blonde irishman therefore all irishmen are blonde".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ill put money on it that she won't be granted SP or leave to remain, and that she won't win in the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, regardless who is in power!

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would say that with the political parties, they'll adjust their attitude based on public opinion. They're not going to put their necks out for Izevbekhai out of the goodness of their hearts and, given the economic downturn, I could see the attitude towards immigrants hardening.

After the amount of time and money spent defending this case against repeated appeals on Izevbekhai's part, if she loses in the Supreme Court and ECHR, the political party that lets her stay despite her case being found to be ineligible for asylum will lose every shred of respect I could ever have felt towards them and no candidate of theirs would ever get so much as a sixth preference vote from me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

This is unfortunately where politics distorts the fundamental issue. For a start she will not be granted subsidiary protection, that is totally out of the question. Permission to remain on humanitarian grounds is another issue but I could not see a newly elected Justice Minister, regardless who it is, starting off by being lenient on this case because of public pressure or the stance of other members within their own political party. They would lose all credibility!

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you were as cynical as I am, you could suggest it was Fianna Fail using the case as negative spin against them in order to gain sympathy with the blue collar xenophobe types......

I believe one of your government parties did that before an election with the "born in Ireland" amendment to your constitution.

rkeane

GuanYin wrote: »

If you were as cynical as I am, you could suggest it was Fianna Fail using the case as negative spin against them in order to gain sympathy with the blue collar xenophobe types......

I believe one of your government parties did that before an election with the "born in Ireland" amendment to your constitution.

That was to do with a tidal wave of pregnant Nigerians arriving on our shores, that could not be allowed to continue. Btw it was passed by a landslide margin.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only if she's lying. If she is honest about the threat (and lets be careful about libel here) then perhaps the whole thing is worth it.

In that instance, the Irish constitution was creating a loophole in European citizenship law that absolutely had to be plugged. Any child born in Ireland before 2004 was automatically an Irish citizen, so non-EU nationals were using that fact to gain lawful residency in the EU: They flew to Ireland heavily pregnant, delivered their babies in the State, and presto! The child was automatically a citizen, and the parent(s) had leave to remain in Europe on humanitarian grounds. It had become a scam run by international human traffickers, and other EU states were putting intense pressure on Ireland to end it by amending its constitution. Of course, the pro-amendment people were labelled "racists" then, too, if I remember correctly.

Or maybe, don't give the parents the right to stay on the grounds of their off-spring. Parents can't stay, they can either give up their child or leave with it. We do it here. It is a really simple concept that would also plug the loophole and would be far more reasonable that what was passed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

Izevbekhai’s striking appearance and photogenic daughters have undoubtedly helped her campaign. Newspaper photographs of the trio tug at the public’s heart strings. Media support doesn’t end there. Two journalists, Philip Boucher-Hayes from RTE and Antonia Leslie of the Sunday Independent, have submitted evidence to the High Court on behalf of Izevbekhai.

Leslie, now an unofficial spokeswoman for the family, has reported that the first time she met Izevbekhai was in court when she looked “younger, prettier, slighter” than her photographs. “I began hugging the dear life out of her,” she said.

Both journalists have told the courts that they have spoken to Nigerian health workers who can verify that Izevbekhai’s first child died from wounds inflicted through FGM, which is still a serious problem in Nigeria. The practice, which involves cutting off the clitoris, is “deeply entrenched in Nigerian society”, according to the World Health Organisation. A 2003 study found that the prevalence of the practice, which causes a series of medical problems, varies from 56% of women in the southwest region of Nigeria to 0.04% in the northwest.

The Times (Of London) journalists are also due some praise for unearthing the gems above.

Crikey....What can one say....Journalistic balance and all that jazz.

So we are to accept ths Ms Leslie meets Ms Izevbekhai for the first time ever in an Irish court and....well..kind of ...Falls in Love with the "Younger Prettier and Slighter" woman than portrayed in photographs.

I`m somewhat engaged to discover at what point exactly Ms Leslie`s and Mr Boucher-Hayes`s devotion to and friendship with Ms Izevbekhai develops into their acceptance as evedential witnesses in the Higher Courts ?

Incredibly it appears as if this "supportive evidence" amounts to third party "Dùirt bhean lìom go ndùirt bean leì" stuff otherwise described as hearsay evidence.

Even more incredible is how their statistics as presented to the courts fly directly in the face of their base arguement that FGM is "Deeply entrenched in Nigeria....well....except for 99.96% of women in the Northwestern provinces and 44% in the Southwestern region.

As Donegalfella muses..."Somethings not quite right here" and it behoves the Irish State to stand firm in the face of those who seek only to alter and subvert its less than oppressive rules to suit their own idelogical ends....

Big_Mac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A well written piece Donegalfella. This is the thing that amazes me. People on the 'let her stay' brigade have continually campaigned to let her stay on some feeble grounds. On this thread, and the one in the sligo thread a prevalant factor in this seems to be "She's so nice so she should stay" and "It'll be the governments fault if her children are uprooted from the society they know" Such nonsense. Suddenly, if she is deported we are to blame for her appealing every judgment and getting uprooted from the society that she is in, rather than it being her own fault because she has defied the rulings of the state consistently for the last four years. Where's the logic in that?

Now in fairness, T runner has being argueing this for quite some time, and seems to have done a lot of research on this. For someone who as done as much research on this, and who has fought her corner for such a long time, it seems very strange to me that someone with T runner's intellect would simply take her at her word (with the occasional facts) and run with it. I've highlighted some points you've made in bold, and I have to ask the question, how can someone who has a background and a story that has as many holes in it as a tetley's tea bag be so easliy taken as gospel unquestionably. Surely something's amiss there. Now, I'm not having a dig here, just asking. And on this, how is it that she has been here this long an no one at all seems to have brought up any of these questions with her?

HollyB wrote: »

I would say that with the political parties, they'll adjust their attitude based on public opinion. They're not going to put their necks out for Izevbekhai out of the goodness of their hearts and, given the economic downturn, I could see the attitude towards immigrants hardening.

After the amount of time and money spent defending this case against repeated appeals on Izevbekhai's part, if she loses in the Supreme Court and ECHR, the political party that lets her stay despite her case being found to be ineligible for asylum will lose every shred of respect I could ever have felt towards them and no candidate of theirs would ever get so much as a sixth preference vote from me.

In Fairness hollyb, I lost all respect for FF years ago because of all the shady going's on, and look who got into power? The political party will be more interested in the opinions of the masses and not the majority

marcsignal

Tbh what bugs me is the constant evasiveness, as well as the constant appeals. Running the risk of being accused of being Anti-Nigerian, it was the same with Kunlee, and the Mayor of Portlaoise has been avoiding the odd probing question about his past too. This considered, is it any surprise that many people raise a cautionary eyebrow, whenever Nigeria, or Nigerians are mentioned with regard to asylum claims?

Without going off topic, the Mayor of Portlaoise has consistantly refused to meet a man who claims to have worked with him on the London Underground, Why ?? I would have thought the easiest way to sort that one out, is meet the guy and refute his claims face to face. Or is he afraid of something ??

Big_Mac wrote: »

In Fairness hollyb, I lost all respect for FF years ago because of all the shady going's on, and look who got into power? The political party will be more interested in the opinions of the masses and not the majority

I think the current economic situation could end up biting Pamela Izevbekhai in the ass if this drags on much longer. The publicity she's getting may actually end up doing her more damage than good. The Irish may be suckers for a sob story, but can just as easily resent being taken for a ride, AND as I've said before, I think she is doing huge damage to Genuine Cases that may be in the pipeline.

Hagar

This thread was started last March, I'm curious to know how much hard earned taxpayers' money has been wasted on this woman since then. Put her on a Ryanair flight, I'll spring for the Credit Card charge.

MIN2511

Hagar wrote: »

This thread was started last March, I'm curious to know how much hard earned taxpayers' money has been wasted on this woman since then. Put her on a Ryanair flight, I'll spring for the Credit Card charge.

Ryan air doesn't fly to Nigeria :P

I am suprised she's still in the country, surely at this stage with the money spent it would be cheaper to keep her/deport her immediately

Hagar

MIN2511 wrote: »

Ryan air doesn't fly to Nigeria :P

Therein lies the rub. She never came here from Nigeria. She came here from another EU country where she and her family were already safe from persecution. The only reason she came to Ireland is because we are suckers and our Social Welfare system was wide open to abuse by so-called refugees.

MIN2511

Hagar wrote: »

Therein lies the rub. She never came here from Nigeria. She came here from another EU country where she and her family were already safe from persecution. The only reason she came to Ireland is because we are suckers and our Social Welfare system was wide open to abuse by so-called refugees.

Really? Then she should be sent back to the EU country....

Ryanair please

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Big_Mac

that article is such a pile of slanted garbage, and agian another attempt by the let her stay campaign to tug on the heart strings of Ireland in the hope that the minister will grant leave to remain.

Even the title is a joke "We cannot ask a mum to risk her child's life" as if its been conclusively proven already that they face certain death if deported. I'm suprised she didn't say that the irish legal system has its head in the sand

There are ramblings in there about Kunle Elukanlo and how that a precedent was set when he was granted leave to remain. I guess a precedent was set, but not the one she elludes to. ie. He was let stay, and look how that turned out? A leaving cert flunk with a criminal record.

That's a guilt Pamela will carry with her forever and it is that guilt, no doubt, that compels her to take every action possible to protect her other daughters from any risk of such mutilation being performed on them.

What possible relevance does that have to what's going on except to play the 'woe is me card?'

it seems we're not willing to go out on a limb for a woman who wears her desperation without shame and in hope of compassion.

Oh, I'm sorry, since she does wear her desperation on her sleeve without shame, lets grant her leave to remain. I'm sure she's nice.

Also, anyone else think its odd how a 'Secretarial Administrator' knows in great detail the laws of out country and how to appeal and so forth? Methinks some premeditated work was done before she even got here.

For the past four years, Pamela Izevbekhai has spoken out about her reasons for leaving Nigeria and her determination not to return. Not for herself, mind, but for her daughters. In Nigeria, Pamela Izevbekhai already lost a daughter, Elizabeth, who died from blood loss after an FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) procedure, performed at the insistence of Pamela's in-laws. It was a procedure Pamela says she was coerced into agreeing to, a weakness she regretted as soon as she saw her 17-month-old baby shake with shock and agony as a razor was used to cut off her clitoris, when the child's hand turned cold in hers as result of the massive bleeding.

So there you have it. A well off bank official was coerced into agreeing to this proceedure. A person who was an 'outsider in her own family' according to the ramblings of Susan McKay. As an outsider in her own family, surely her consent wouldn't be needed then?

And as for that WHO blurb?

The World Health Organisation estimates that up to 140 million women are currently living with the consequences of FGM, as it is known. In Africa, where it is widely practised in various different versions, three million girls a year are at risk. The mutilation is performed without anesthesia. It can, as in Elizabeth’s case, cause death. It frequently gives rise to infection, pain, sexual difficulties, and complications in childbirth. It is officially outlawed in Nigeria.

I would ask how she was so ignorant to the idea of FGM since it was so common, but its better said here

Then we have the curious moment where Izevbekhai, who claims in court that female genital mutilation is ubiquitous and inescapable in her home country, states that she did not even know that female circumcision existed was until her first-born daughter was eighteen months old (by which time Izevbekhai was twenty-six). Does the reporter stop and inquire into this anomaly? "If you claim that it is everywhere, and every girl is in imminent danger, how could you not have heard of the practice until you were twenty-six years old?" No, she proceeds right along, as if there were no problem, no contradiction.

oscarBravo

MIN2511 wrote: »

Really? Then she should be sent back to the EU country....

No, she shouldn't.

Pride Fighter

Is she gone yet??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sizzler

MIN2511 wrote: »

Really? Then she should be sent back to the EU country....

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, she shouldn't.

Agree its a bit late in the day but why shouldnt she have been sent back to the previous port of departure Isn't that supposed to be the ruling or have I missed something? The UK send people back to Calais on a daily basis e.g.

Kunle was asked the same question on TLL show by Pat Kenny. More or less put it to him that he flew here via Amsterdam as there was no direct flights to Dublin....then asked why he didnt claim asylum there. Cue tumbleweeds all round till the director told Kenny to move on.

Ireland would save a fortune by posting more people on the borders, outside of Ireland if need be on the main air routes from Africa such as Amsterdam Schipol and Paris CDG. That would be a starter for 10.

oscarBravo

Sizzler wrote: »

Isn't that supposed to be the ruling or have I missed something?

Yes, you've missed something: there is no such ruling. Read the sticky post on this forum on the Dublin regulation.

ParkRunner

Sizzler wrote: »

Ireland would save a fortune by posting more people on the borders, outside of Ireland if need be on the main air routes from Africa such as Amsterdam Schipol and Paris CDG. That would be a starter for 10.

A considerable number of foreign nationals are refused leave to land at the airport and sent straight back to where they came from. The majority of those who are here claiming asylum (not including the legitimate refugees) have a fabricated story and more than likely came in through the North of Ireland so it is impossible to send them anywhere without knowing precisely their travel route.

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, you've missed something: there is no such ruling. Read the sticky post on this forum on the Dublin regulation.

Whilst I appreciate the point being made, Isn't it a bit strange that her husband chose to enter Ireland through the North - where he was caught and returned to the UK and subsequently deported?

After all - why go another route altogether to one that he would have been entirely familiar with?

I know he had a visa for the UK, but then again, so did she.

So many questions - so many reporters - so few journalists