Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

rkeane

Macros42 wrote: »

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

You said "And fortunately her girls will get the clitoris' cut out because we in Ireland don't consider that abuse"

This suggests that you actually believe that bull. Lets face facts, she is an ecomomic migrant posing as an asylum seeker....she has no grounds for asylum in this country.

Orion

rkeane wrote: »

You said "And fortunately her girls will get the clitoris' cut out because we in Ireland don't consider that abuse"

This suggests that you actually believe that bull. Lets face facts, she is an ecomomic migrant posing as an asylum seeker....she has no grounds for asylum in this country.

'That bull' is rwported by various human rights organisations globally who say it is widespread. But they're probably nutters too.

rkeane

Right so, does that mean we should import all of those unfortunate women.....give me a break.

djpbarry

rkeane wrote: »

The fact is she lost every stage of the process, nobody believed her.....and quite rightly.

rkeane wrote: »

I'm being honest, I don't give a dam about the woman or her girls....NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK....NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NIGERIAN....but because I am sick to death of bogus asylum seeking.

rkeane wrote: »

And you believe the word of a person who lied throughout her bogus application for asylum.

I'm curious to know how you can be so sure she is lying? What do you know that the rest of us don't? If I recall correctly, the High Court actually accepted her version of events. So the question is not whether she is telling the truth, but whether or not she has grounds for asylum.

rkeane wrote: »

ninty9er wrote: »

Refugees are entitled to seek refuge in the first state they reach, not any one of their choosing.

Yep, that comes under the Dublin Convention.

Actually, the main goal of the convention was to prevent multiple applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the same person in several Member States. The primary objective of the Dublin system is to allocate responsibility for processing an asylum application to the Member State that “played the most important part in the entry or residence of the person concerned”.

rkeane

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm curious to know how you can be so sure she is lying? What do you know that the rest of us don't? If I recall correctly, the High Court actually accepted her version of events. So the question is not whether she is telling the truth, but whether or not she has grounds for asylum.
Actually, the main goal of the convention was to prevent multiple applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the same person in several Member States. The primary objective of the Dublin system is to allocate responsibility for processing an asylum application to the Member State that “played the most important part in the entry or residence of the person concerned”.

Right so, that member state would be the UK. She entered here via there, why don't we send her packing there. I don't care where she goes as long as we get rid of her.

mikemac

Saw this on the news but hadn't heard of it before.

My only point is there should be a better system in place.
For every appeal there seems to be another appeal and then was an application for an injunction in the High Court. Where does it end?
All of these are clocking up legal fees and who is paying for this? Is Pamela Izevbekhai paying? Are RAR & the Irish Refugee Council paying seeing as they have have strong views on the case?
Or is it taxpayers?

Maybe there needs to be a swift decision on every application and only an appeal if there is new and relevant information.
Not appeal after appeal......

djpbarry

rkeane wrote: »

Right so, that member state would be the UK. She entered here via there, why don't we send her packing there.

I doubt the UK see it that way. If all asylum applications had to be made at the first "port of call" within the EU, then Ireland would receive virtually no asylum seekers - I can't see the other EU member states agreeing to that, can you? Which is probably why the Dublin Convention is worded as it is.

You didn't answer my question; how do you know she's lying? How do you know for sure that her kids won't be mutilated if they are returned to Nigeria?

djpbarry

micmclo wrote: »

My only point is there should be a better system in place.
For every appeal there seems to be another appeal and then was an application for an injunction in the High Court. Where does it end?

Absolutely, the system certainly needs revising. But, it's important to note that many applicants are granted asylum on appeal. This suggests to me that the applications are not being properly considered in the first instance. If the applications were properly considered to begin with, then many of these appeals would be avoided, it seems.

JP Liz

Stupid question here but could she go to another Country besides her homeland Nigeria?

I feel for her and her family but she should be deported

lego

Under the Dublin Convention, her asylum claim should be processed by the first safe country she arrived in, not by Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/dublin_convention

http://www.europaworld.org/DEVPOLAWAR/Eng/Refugees/Refugees_DocC_eng.htm



If she is allowed to stay in Ireland because of the ECHR intervention, Lisbon Treaty referendum II will be rejected. The Irish people feel they have lost all control over their country.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1119/1227026413699.html

The Citizenship Referendum showed how most people felt about the issue of mass uncontrolled immigration and more specifically about the "Irish Born Child" scam that took advantage of a loophole in our constitution. Tens of thousands of IBC children and their parents are still residing in Ireland and have not been deported.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/11817326?view=Eircomnet




I voted for the Nice treaty. I would not have done so if I knew at the time that it would create a loophole allowing non-EEA nationals (Mainly Pakistani,Mauritian,Indian and Bangladeshi men) to claim residency on the basis of bogus marriages to EEA nationals (Mainly northeastern european women looking for an easy €5,000-€10,000).

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nonirish-using-fake-marriages-in-bid-to-secure-legal-residency-1074793.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/836410000-bogus-marriage-offer-for-latvian-girls-1372358.html




The Lisbon Treaty grants a right to asylum as opposed to a right to apply for asylum.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_terms.html

A less reputable source, but essentially saying the same thing:

http://www.cori.ie/Justice/Publications/51-BriefingDocuments/530-briefing-on-lisbon-treaty

This forces EU member states to grant asylum regardless of whether the application is Genuine.

seanybiker

well she came here illegally so get rid of her. If she stays then why cant the rest illegal ones stay. Same way as all the irish illegals all over the world should be sent home. If ya cant enter a place legally then though.

lego

Many of the asylum applications before the Citizenship Referendum were IBC status wannabees, they knew they had'nt a genuine claim to refugee status and that their application would be rejected. They also knew that they could stall for time and pop out an "Irish-Born Child" while their application was being processed, allowing them to claim residency on the basis of their "IBC" and making the rejection of their asylum claim irrelevant.

Hagar

lego wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty grants a right to asylum as opposed to a right to apply for asylum.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_terms.html

A less reputable source, but essentially saying the same thing:

http://www.cori.ie/Justice/Publications/51-BriefingDocuments/530-briefing-on-lisbon-treaty

This forces EU member states to grant asylum regardless of whether the application is Genuine.

But there is no Lisbon Treaty is there?
The proposed treaty is null and void following Ireland's refusal to ratify it.

djpbarry

lego wrote: »

Under the Dublin Convention, her asylum claim should be processed by the first safe country she arrived in, not by Ireland.

Where does it say that?

lego wrote: »

If she is allowed to stay in Ireland because of the ECHR intervention, Lisbon Treaty referendum II will be rejected. The Irish people feel they have lost all control over their country.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1119/1227026413699.html

Is that article supposed to be evidence for your theory? Because surprisingly, it doesn’t even mention the Lisbon Treaty.

lego wrote: »

The Citizenship Referendum showed how most people felt about the issue of mass uncontrolled immigration and more specifically about the "Irish Born Child" scam that took advantage of a loophole in our constitution. Tens of thousands of IBC children and their parents are still residing in Ireland and have not been deported.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/11817326?view=Eircomnet

Irrelevant in this case.

lego wrote: »

I voted for the Nice treaty. I would not have done so if I knew at the time that it would create a loophole allowing non-EEA nationals (Mainly Pakistani,Mauritian,Indian and Bangladeshi men) to claim residency on the basis of bogus marriages to EEA nationals (Mainly northeastern european women looking for an easy €5,000-€10,000).

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nonirish-using-fake-marriages-in-bid-to-secure-legal-residency-1074793.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/836410000-bogus-marriage-offer-for-latvian-girls-1372358.html

Irrelevant.

It’s in no way obvious from this post (and your sig) that you have a particular agenda.

lego wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty grants a right to asylum as opposed to a right to apply for asylum.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_terms.html

This forces EU member states to grant asylum regardless of whether the application is Genuine.

No, it doesn’t. Can we leave the Lisbon Treaty out of this now, as it’s totally irrelevant?

oscarBravo

lego wrote: »

Under the Dublin Convention, her asylum claim should be processed by the first safe country she arrived in, not by Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/dublin_convention

Let's see...

Your case may be one where Ireland requests another Regulation State to take charge of your application. For example, this would include a transfer for family unity purposes or where another State has issued you with a visa or work permit or where you regularly crossed the frontier of another Regulation State prior to applying for asylum in Ireland.

Alternatively, Ireland may request that another Regulation State take back your application because, for example, you have made an asylum claim in another Regulation State and that the claim has not yet been finalised, or you made an asylum claim in another Regulation State and you withdrew your asylum claim in that State or your application for asylum was rejected and you are in Ireland without permission.

Which of these applies in this case?

lego

Hagar wrote: »

But there is no Lisbon Treaty is there?
The proposed treaty is null and void following Ireland's refusal to ratify it.

Refusal, but for how long? Alot of gombeen men are weak minded fools and would sell our Soverignty for a few euro.

oscarBravo

This thread isn't about Lisbon. Back on topic.

Josie_dub

Definitely not, there are people who genuinely deserve to be given asylum in this country and then there is a case like this. She has failed at every obstacle so far, Commissioner Interview, Appeals Tribunal Hearing, Judicial Review. All of these dealt with by trained civil servants, barristers and judges.

If she could prove valid points to allow her to stay in this country she would not have failed before. This case should have been over long ago. The way things like this go when they reach the media like this though I think she will definitely be allowed stay even if its the wrong decision.

rkeane

Josie_dub wrote: »

Definitely not, there are people who genuinely deserve to be given asylum in this country and then there is a case like this. She has failed at every obstacle so far, Commissioner Interview, Appeals Tribunal Hearing, Judicial Review. All of these dealt with by trained civil servants, barristers and judges.

If she could prove valid points to allow her to stay in this country she would not have failed before. This case should have been over long ago. The way things like this go when they reach the media like this though I think she will definitely be allowed stay even if its the wrong decision.

In this case I'd wager my house that she will be kicked out, she hasn't a legal leg to stand on. She will be spending christmas back in Lagos.

Nodin

rkeane wrote: »

Right so, that member state would be the UK. She entered here via there, why don't we send her packing there. I don't care where she goes as long as we get rid of her.

And why this vehemence against a woman who is only in the public eye due to her wishing to become resident here?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is exactly why she needs to be deported. She is a total lier, she never had a case for asylum.

oscarBravo

I'm still puzzled by the vehemence of the sentiment against her. She got legal aid? So do the gangsters in Limerick driving armour-plated BMWs to their court cases. There are lots of targets for spleen-venting, but this woman seems to be getting more than her share.

marcsignal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe you may have hit the nail on the head there. Times have changed.

Consider this, I'm fairly confident that if this case had reached this stage, even 3 years ago, she'd have had a better chance of being allowed to stay, and she'd have more public support.

Look at the rough % of posters on this thread who simply want her out, it's pretty high imo. Now look at similar threads going back a few years, and I think you'll find more posters in support of asylum seekers etc.

I believe the Irish people are getting to the end of their tether with foreigners clogging up our courts with claims like these.
In fact I'd even go so far as to say, many Irish people have a pretty low opinion of Lawyers/Barristers and other fellow travellers who still possibly make a good living out of these cases.

I think it's a pity we didn't put a fast track, fair, pragmatic immigration/asylum policy in place years ago, and one that was seen to be all of the above.

There has been a lot of talk, and claims of racism, over the last 10 years, during the good times. I fear that if things get much worse, economically, for the country, then there is a danger that those who have 'cried wolf' for so long, might have real racism to worry about.

I might add, that I hope it never befalls us, any foreigners I know here are all working, and I've no problem with any of them, but I think the woman in question, at this point, has burned all her very expensive bridges, and should go.

rkeane

At least she will have a decent standard of living when she goes back to Nigeria, she comes from a rich family.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

marcsignal wrote: »

Consider this, I'm fairly confident that if this case had reached this stage, even 3 years ago, she'd have had a better chance of being allowed to stay, and she'd have more public support.

You think the Supreme Court would have reached a different conclusion three years ago? Why?

I believe the Irish people are getting to the end of their tether with foreigners clogging up our courts with claims like these.

What percentage of cases before the courts are "claims like these"?

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Black people? Foreigners? Women? Mothers?

Limerick gangsters may also be receiving legal aid. But odious as they are, at least they are (presumably) Irish citizens and have some right to be in the country—so our courts have an obligation to deal with them.

First, an asylum seeker has a right to be in the country. Second, there's nothing in the Constitution that I'm aware of that says the courts only have an obligation to deal with citizens - were that the case, foreign criminals would have a field day.

But at least it's becoming clearer that the core problem here is xenophobia.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marcsignal

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think the Supreme Court would have reached a different conclusion three years ago? Why?

Because I believe judges are also suceptible to politically correct pressure, from the public, and the media.

This is off topic mind, but consider the conviction of 'Padraig Nally' the instruction of the judge to the jury, that they had to find him guilty of either murder or manslaughter, is an example. That instruction was found to be in breach of his civil rights to a fair trial, and he was released. I'm guessing, but I believe the judge was afraid of the possible implications of Nally being declared innocent, and released. imo, had that happened, the backlash from the Travelling community would have been extremely vocal, to say the very least. The irony is, that if the judge hadn't walked on eggshells the first time, Nally might well have been found guilty anyway, and could still be in jail.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage of cases before the courts are "claims like these"?

There have been some pretty high profile cases over the last 10 years, that have turned into legal tennis tournaments with appeal after appeal. "Kunlee" the leaving cert student is one that springs to mind, but I couldn't name them all, without time to research the matter.