Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

Sizzler

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Just did, thanks, honest oversight.

Out of interest where was that sticky pulled from?This assessment from the EU isnt as clear cut as the sticky,

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/intro/doc/com_2007_299_en.pdf

its eluding to the classification and subsequent agreement of who should deal with the asylum application, it makes no reference to transiting.

Back on topic. Not arguing the toss, just think the sticky could do with some references etc.:)

HollyB

opo wrote: »

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

Why would her husband be familiar with the route? Even if we assume Ms Izevbekhai's account of her journey to be accurate, she was travelling without her husband. For whatever reason, by her own account, she opted to travel to Ireland through a smuggler instead of taking advantage of the fact that she had a visa for the UK. He, on the other hand, seems to spend time in the UK, legally, so it makes sense that he would go via the North, if flying directly to Ireland wasn't an option for some reason.

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Why would her husband be familiar with the route? Even if we assume Ms Izevbekhai's account of her journey to be accurate, she was travelling without her husband. For whatever reason, by her own account, she opted to travel to Ireland through a smuggler instead of taking advantage of the fact that she had a visa for the UK. He, on the other hand, seems to spend time in the UK, legally, so it makes sense that he would go via the North, if flying directly to Ireland wasn't an option for some reason.

I only suggested his familiarity in the sense that he (I assume) would have had some hand act ot part in arranging the mysterious (and of course hugely expensive) smuggler.

I don't want to get all logical here and suggest that they both entered the UK on a visa and both attempted entry to Ireland seperately to systematically target and abuse our asylum system, like so many of their fellow Nigerian compatriots, before and after them. Successfully in her case and not so successfully in his.

AlekSmart

With the increasing awareness of the role (or lack of it) played by our "Land Frontier" in this particular case perhaps it too is a topic for discussion.

With the UK Government intent upon ending the Common Travel Agreement and Ireland Teo haemorraging vast amounts of its Fiscal Product across that line perhaps its about time to go Israeli and consider re-erecting the Border as we knew it.(and may well do again).

With a name like Donegalfella,I`m sure he will be familiar with the role played by "Nigerian" businessmen in enhancing the cross border Taxi and Hackney trade in the recent past.

Remember the shady Nigerian based Traffickers utilised by Ms Izevbekhai will have needed an infrastructure in place to facilitate their clients.

The arrival of the Peace Process dividends will have left some elements of Northern Society with a lacunae in their lines of business so where better to focus on than Nigeria...(All Black people are of course Nigerian).

Perhaps the very thought of FF having to be the one`s to re-erect the Border to stem the tide of post-Izevbekhai case applicants may well concentrate Dermot Aherne`s mind on the job in hand !!!!

sceptre

Sizzler wrote: »

Out of interest where was that sticky pulled from?This assessment from the EU isnt as clear cut as the sticky,

(side question: side answer)
I think all of the mods (really, all of us) on this forum have ended up doing far more research on the regulations than we'd have liked to, due almost totally because of misinformation repeatedly being presented as fact and the foundation of a number of pointless discussions on the topic, which has derailed far too many threads on the issue.
(end of side answer)

hedgeh0g

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Is she gone yet??

What are the financial costs so far on all this to soft touch Ireland?

Big_Mac

hedgeh0g wrote: »

What are the financial costs so far on all this to soft touch Ireland?

I don't know. but regardless of what they are, in a time where the country is in a financial crisis, the let her stay campaign will say that its a price worth paying. Funny how we are able to throw away countless amounts of cash at this, and no one stops to question it. Oh, I forgot she's entitled to question the courts decision all the way to the supreme court. Guess that makes it ok then

AlekSmart

One other aspect of the Izevbekhai "case" sometimes overlooked is the fact that the Ireland which she so strenuously attempted to enter and remain in has essentially disappeared in a puff of green smoke.

Èire 2005 was a wee country on the top of its (puffed up) game.
It`s political,social and media stars were fèted throughout the World and anybody attempting to question our World dominance in being the "Craic" capital of the planet was roundly condemned !

One can magine Ms Izevbekhai`s still anonymous trafficking agent leafing through his Thomas Cook`s guide to attractive destinations before pausing at the Teddy Bear in Englands lap and going Hmmmmmm...!

Nearly 5 years later Ms Izevbekhai now faces some quite different choices with Eire 09 perhaps not even able to offer any viable future for herself or her daughters.

Incredibly,when I speak to some of my Nigerian work colleagues they display a marked indifference to this case,with some of them shaking their heads and laughing.
A couple of them are quite angry at their country being portrayed as some form of wild savage state with razor wielding tribesmen lurking at every street corner.


Pausing for reflection,it`s perhaps noticable that very few expresions of solidarity or support appear to be coming from the substantial established Nigerian community in Eire,certainly nothing to compare with the resounding chants emenating from the indigenous "lethemstay" group.

I also believe the Nigerian Ambassadors intervention is of very significant importance in this as it provides some very firm contradictory evidence to the charges being levelled against that State by Ms Izevbekhai`s team.

As EF states the sheer volume of evidence contradicting Ms Izevbekhai`s claims is mounting rapidly and may well make Dermot Aherns job easier as the country`s mood changes.

oscarBravo

Big_Mac wrote: »

Funny how we are able to throw away countless amounts of cash at this, and no one stops to question it.

No-one?

No-one??

Dude, are we reading the same thread?

Oh, I forgot she's entitled to question the courts decision all the way to the supreme court. Guess that makes it ok then

Are you suggesting that she's not entitled to due process?

Big_Mac

AlekSmart wrote: »

I also believe the Nigerian Ambassadors intervention is of very significant importance in this as it provides some very firm contradictory evidence to the charges being levelled against that State by Ms Izevbekhai`s team.

T runner branded the Nigerian ambassador as a Joker in the Sligo thread, with no corroborating evidence. Why is that? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055421874&page=12
Reply 167 (Don't know how to link to singe quotes)

oscarBravo wrote: »

No-one?

No-one??

Dude, are we reading the same thread?

The question has been asked here, but this is a discussion forum. Has it been asked anywhere else? Certainly not by the let her stay brigade

Are you suggesting that she's not entitled to due process?

No, I am suggesting that she is doing everything she can to try to stay in this country, which includes disregarding judgments against her, going to the supreme court and the ECHR.
All the while whipping up a media campaign and support for her case to try to put pressure on the Minister to grant leave to remain. Do you not think she's grasping at straws?

oscarBravo

Big_Mac wrote: »

No, I am suggesting that she is doing everything she can to try to stay in this country, which includes disregarding judgments against her, going to the supreme court and the ECHR.

That's what those courts are for. Are you suggesting that no-one should have a right of appeal to higher courts, or that we only deny asylum seekers due process?

Excession

She should be deported without delay. Her story is so full of holes that there is more than reasonable grounds to believe that she is making it up. She is an economic refugee pure and simple.

If she is allowed to stay then the preceidnt will be set and anyone with a young daughter from Nigeria or anywhere else that has any FGM will arrive on out shores and we will not have a leg to stand on. If we let this one stay then they all get to stay.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Excession

Fair enough and I agree that we need a final ruling on this to put it to bed once and for all. Its just very frustrating to see that a court ruling can be appealed again and again for years on end at God knows what expense to the taxpayer and on such flimsy evidence.
I understand that her legal team have been working pro bono on this since the start or is she getting legal aid?

Big_Mac

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's what those courts are for. Are you suggesting that no-one should have a right of appeal to higher courts, or that we only deny asylum seekers due process?

Not at all. If her case was watertight then I wouldn't have an issue. But it's not. Too many gaps and inconsistencies in her story not to mention the question over the actual route she took to get here. That's what bothers me about this. Decisions have been made on the basis of the evidence that she has supplied and she has continued regardless in this pursuit despite not giving any new information to case. Wasn't this why her appeal was rejected in the high court?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Big_Mac wrote: »

Not at all. If her case was watertight then I wouldn't have an issue. But it's not. Too many gaps and inconsistencies in her story not to mention the question over the actual route she took to get here. That's what bothers me about this. Decisions have been made on the basis of the evidence that she has supplied and she has continued regardless in this pursuit despite not giving any new information to case. Wasn't this why her appeal was rejected in the high court?

I'm not arguing with any of that. My point is that that is still for the courts to decide. My issue is with people who want her deported without allowing her to exhaust the legal avenues open to her. I'm curious whether it's just her that you feel shouldn't have recourse to the law, or Nigerians in general, or asylum seekers, or foreigners...?

If you want to argue that there should be a clearer-cut process for the determination of the validity of an asylum claim, by all means do so. But that's not what you're arguing: you're saying that you don't believe her, and therefore she shouldn't be allowed to pursue all legal avenues open to her.

Big_Mac

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not arguing with any of that. My point is that that is still for the courts to decide. My issue is with people who want her deported without allowing her to exhaust the legal avenues open to her. I'm curious whether it's just her that you feel shouldn't have recourse to the law, or Nigerians in general, or asylum seekers, or foreigners...?

If you want to argue that there should be a clearer-cut process for the determination of the validity of an asylum claim, by all means do so. But that's not what you're arguing: you're saying that you don't believe her, and therefore she shouldn't be allowed to pursue all legal avenues open to her.

Its true, I don't believe her story. My point, is that She has already had rulings against her with the evidence she has submitted, and went to the high court, and now the supreme court. The high court ruled against her saying that she had not submitted any new evidence to her case. She has pursued the legal avenue, and lost. She is now challenging this decision but hasn't submitted new evidence to support her case. I'm not saying she can't do it, I just think it shouldn't as she has given nothing additional to her case that would have had a bearing on previos rulings that were made.

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not arguing with any of that. My point is that that is still for the courts to decide. My issue is with people who want her deported without allowing her to exhaust the legal avenues open to her. I'm curious whether it's just her that you feel shouldn't have recourse to the law, or Nigerians in general, or asylum seekers, or foreigners...?

If you want to argue that there should be a clearer-cut process for the determination of the validity of an asylum claim, by all means do so. But that's not what you're arguing: you're saying that you don't believe her, and therefore she shouldn't be allowed to pursue all legal avenues open to her.

I believe that the courts should be absolutely last resort and rarely employed. So does the UNHCR. For that reason we have established a system that is administered with UNHCR approval and is not a court per se.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds. A legal system operating as a final appeals process making the good work of ORAC and RAC in recent years in streamlining claims, and making the system less attractive to abuse, almost irrelevant.

There appears to be a basic mis-apprehension about the courts role. It is one of adminstrative review and not case review. It is for that reason that the courts continually state that they cannot interfere with the decision unless there is an administrative error. The best that can be hoped for in the rare occasion this happens is resubmission to ORAC.

To appeal again and again is an abuse that is too readily exploited by the lawyers on legal aid and is in itself a pull factor and reward for fraudulent claims.

Even if the lawyers do this pro bono - who would you think is paying for this familys continued residence in the state?

And please spare me and others the underhand "racist" card. As a matter of fact, I don't think foreigners or asylum seekers or Nigerians or anyone else for that matter - should have unlimited access to the courts or welfare systems only to find out again and again that they deserved the benefit of neither.

AlekSmart

And please spare me and others the underhand "racist" card. As a matter of fact, I don't think foreigners or asylum seekers or Nigerians or anyone else for that matter - should have unlimited access to the courts or welfare systems only to find out again and again that they deserved the benefit of neither.

A BIG +1 on that,opo

.

My issue is with people who want her deported without allowing her to exhaust the legal avenues open to her. I'm curious whether it's just her that you feel shouldn't have recourse to the law, or Nigerians in general, or asylum seekers, or foreigners...?

Speaking for myself I dont WANT Pamela Izevbekhai deported in the sense that Oscar Bravo intimates,however I do believe that she has already exhausted all of the reasonable avenues of Irish Law and is now embarked upon a frivolous attempt to frustrate the Deportation Order timeline.

I also remain convinced that there are underlying elements of this case which have not yet entered the public domain in relation to the manner in which her case has attracted it`s very effective support structure and those figures behind it.

blackiebest

AlekSmart wrote: »

A BIG +1 on that,opo

.

Speaking for myself I dont WANT Pamela Izevbekhai deported in the sense that Oscar Bravo intimates,however I do believe that she has already exhausted all of the reasonable avenues of Irish Law and is now embarked upon a frivolous attempt to frustrate the Deportation Order timeline.

I also remain convinced that there are underlying elements of this case which have not yet entered the public domain in relation to the manner in which her case has attracted it`s very effective support structure and those figures behind it.

Alek, I am genuinely curious as to what the 'underlying elements' you refer to are. This is not a loaded question more so I am trying to understand what exactly you suspect. Would you mind elaborating on this? For me there certainly is no underlying motive and knowing quiet a few of the 'local' supporters in Sligo I could only say that to a man (or woman) their support is based on a compassion, respect and desire to help somone who has become their friend over the last number of years. I am very friendly with the one person who has really hi-lighted this case and been a driver in garnering support both nationally and locally. This person would have been instrumental in, for example, introducing her case to the political parties, ECHR etc. This person has, since I have known him (long time now) been a member of Amnesty international and Pamelas case would be only one of hundreds he has worked on, although certainly is probably the most local. It is laughable that he has underlying motives yet to be revealed.

Personally I am amused that people can not accept that the media attention, political attention etc is anything other than a voice for a huge amount of people who have come to know of her story. I am suprised, given your previous posts, that you agree that people should not have access to the full court systems as OPO stated. Although slagged off numerous times here I think what Roddy Doyle wrote, having never met or heard of the woman, is representive of why people are fighting for this Country to grant this woman the right to remain here. For those who have not yet read ;

" 8th December 2008

Re: Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters, Naomi and Jemima

Dear Minister Ahern

I'm writing to you today, two days before the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a certain amount of misgiving but also with enormous pride, because I know that it is more than likely that you will read this letter. I cherish the fact that I live in a liberal democracy, where our politicians are known to us, where we can call them by their first names without causing offence, where even their nicknames are badges of affection. I love the fact that my children are growing up in this country, a place which is a bigger version of their home - a warm, loving, funny, challenging place. I remember reading a short article by a friend of mine, Chinedu Onyejelem, in which he described how moved he was to see Bertie Ahern, still our Taoiseach at the time, walking up the steps of the church in Cabra, on his way into mass. I remember feeling great pride in my country that such a thing, our country's leader mixing with other people, was possible, and that we had organised ourselves in such a way that we could take this simple act for granted.

I was watching the News on RTE one day last week, and there was an item on Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters, a civic reception for them in Sligo. And I thought how profoundly upsetting it would be to see these three people being deported from our country, and how ashamed I would feel if this happened. I'm no expert on law and won't pretend to be, but I can think of no moral reason why Ms Izevbekhai and her children should not be allowed to stay here. I wasn't looking at precedents or statistics; I was looking at two little girls in their Sunday dresses, kicking their heels against the legs of the chairs they sat on. I saw the innocence and beauty, and the glimpse of the future, that we all love to see in children. I am a very proud citizen of Ireland but I hate to think how I will feel if I have to witness these two children being hauled out of my country and sent to a place where they might be maimed.

I grew up in a house where the Proclamation of Independence was up on the wall, in the hall, and I don't know how many times I read it or parts of it. I remember once when I was a child counting the number of times the word 'children' appeared in the document. I counted four. I remember thinking that this was amazing, that a document that started with the scary, stirring phrase, 'In the name of God and the dead generations' could also include children, that a call to arms could also be a warm embrace. The Proclamations's call to arms can be consigned to history but, perhaps more than ever before, we need the warm embrace. We are moving into frightening, uncertain times, made more frightening, I think, by much of the commentary and political decisions. Our politicians, I'm afraid, have not, to date, been serving us well. I can well understand that they might feel as uncertain and as frightened about the future as many of us are being made to feel. But I can't think of any other time in my life when acts of generosity and reassurance are so vital. The decision to let Pamela Izevbekhai and her children stay would be such an act. I've never met Ms Izevbekhai and her children but they look like a warm, beautiful family and, at this point in our history, we need all the beauty we can get.

Yours sincerely
Roddy Doyle"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackiebest

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That may be your opinion Donegalfella and I respect that however I will, as will many others, feel shame if we deport Pamela and her daughters. "Hauled" may not be a word you would like to use to describe as to what will happen should she be deported but she and her daughters will be taken against their wishes and placed on a plane, using force if neccessary and I think it will be. I think 'hauled' is not an over the top way of describing that process. Many people feel that she should be allowed to stay even if her story is the 'teabag' you say it is. The Law is the Law but it is not always just and there are numerous cases which demonstrate that fact. I certainly am no expert on it and for sure all the reasons I feel she should be allowed stay involve elements which are irrelavant in law. But lets throw it on its head, will you feel pride in your country if/when Pamela, Niaomi and Jemima are deported? Should we as citizens feel proud if this action is the outcome?

So while emotions rightly have no place in Law, our society and even our constitution is emotive and therefore being ashamed of our system, if this family is deported is a right to opinion I hold and am entitled to voice.

AlekSmart

I could only say that to a man (or woman) their support is based on a compassion, respect and desire to help somone who has become their friend over the last number of years. I am very friendly with the one person who has really hi-lighted this case and been a driver in garnering support both nationally and locally. This person would have been instrumental in, for example, introducing her case to the political parties, ECHR etc. This person has, since I have known him (long time now) been a member of Amnesty international and Pamelas case would be only one of hundreds he has worked on, although certainly is probably the most local. It is laughable that he has underlying motives yet to be revealed.

While I can see how Blackiebest can be amused at my reluctance to accept that the current flurry of "Media and Political attention" is anthing other than "a voice for a huge amount of people who have come to know of her story" rather than a response driven by quite media and politically savvy organizations such as Amnesty International and others.

The fact that your friend in the Letthemstay group is a committed and long term member of Amnesty International with "Hundreds of cases" under his belt does not in any way reduce the value of his exhortations,but rather imposes a caveat on my unquestioning acceptance of them.

I do not have any inherent problem with Ms Izevbekhai`s rights to the standard legal methodologies but I DO believe that she has embarked,or perhaps been induced,to embark upon the current extended process for reasons possibly more beneficial to other individuals and groups in a broader careerist sense.

This forum is one of the few places wherein exists any real development of the core issues of the application of the Laws and Systems of Ireland and long may that continue.

The issues of Compassion,Respect and Desire whilst being highly commendable are not and should not be the central one`s at play in deciding the merits of the Izevbekhai case.

But lets throw it on its head, will you feel pride in your country if/when Pamela, Niaomi and Jemima are deported? Should we as citizens feel proud if this action is the outcome?

As a direct unqualfied answer to this ,Yes I would feel pride in it,and reassurance that my Country had stood behind the properly enacted Law of of it`s Democratic Constitution.

This may yet turn out to be a turning-point for our State`s regard for ALL of its wide ranging civil and criminal laws,the casual instititional disregard for which,in a very real sense brough the State to it`s knees.

As for Roddy Doyle`s letter to the Minister,It is something quite within his remit to lobby on any given topic.
However as a professional writer/playright he chooses to craft his communication in a particular profesionally emotive way and that is exactly how I read it.
I have consistently been more impressed by the less prosaic terms of the various legal reasonings handed down in relation to Ms Izevbekhai`s failed attempts thus far.....to my untuned ear they simply make better sense.

I also remain taken with the relatively low-key response to the Nigerian Ambassador`s intervention in this case.
It should be noted that in Diplomatic protocol terms this intervention is at the very top-end of the scale.

I feel that the Ambassadors direct assurances of personal safety for Pamela Naoimi and Jemima,and offers to Investigate Ms Izevbekhai`s allegations are a very emotively stated response from a Diplomatic Corps not usually known for such items.

Yet this response from another Democratic State is,from what I can deduce swept aside,casually disregarded and downplayed in the continuing need to see this production to the bitter end.

opo

blackiebest wrote: »

I am suprised, given your previous posts, that you agree that people should not have access to the full court systems as OPO stated.

Asylum seekers have full access to free legal aid throughout the process. My point remains that they should only require the benefit of the courts in exceptional circumstances. This point is underpinned by the ridiculous amount of court cases taken in proportion to the low levels of success at taxpayers expense.

The net effect being that asylum claims that may be settled in weeks - turn into epic sagas lasting years.

The claims themselves may be complete fabrications and riddled with inaccuracies and downright lies. The legal system does not discriminate in this regard in the time taken to process claims for administrative review but may factor those issues in when assessing costs.

The forthcoming immigration bill will shift the burden of legal costs to the lawyers persisting with vexatious claims whereas at present - the taxpayer coughs up - win or lose.

That remains my point.

As for Doyles letter - it's the first time I have read it.

I am stunned it was published. Fact free, self indulgent and mawkish to the the extreme. The kind of letter I have yet to see for a white asylum seeker or single adult male. But the "anti-racists" have always been colour and gender blind, haven't they?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlanG

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.

Irish people went to America and Australia etc. but never got social welfare, medical support or legal aid and were thrown out if they were caught and found to have entered illegally. Perhaps you would like us to apply the same standards to those who came to Ireland.

Nigeria is a massive country – the idea that this woman has to go back to a dangerous area is like saying an illegal Irishman should not get deported from the US because it may be dangerous for him to go to a Rangers match in Glasgow.

dodgyme

96 pages and blackisbest still quoting roddy doyle. oh "for those of you who havent seen it"?

worded

dodgyme wrote: »

96 pages and blackisbest still quoting roddy doyle. oh "for those of you who havent seen it"?

Can someone post a link to Roddy Doyles letter pls? I missed it.