Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

rkeane

xenophobia ? Would you ever wake youreself up! The proof that people were sick of having our country exploited came as far back as the citizenship referendum. The no campaign were absolutelty slaughtered. This woman like many others has cost this country a fortune, she will be going home.

asdasd

This topic shows the hypocrisy of multi-cultism. If the term multiculturalism means anything it means that we should accept all cultures, the entire multitude as equal. if what's meant by it is a society which is more open to other cultures than most then we have perfectly good words for that: pluralistic societies.

FGM is part of a culture, and a part of a significant culture at that, with global reach. So why dont the multi-cultis accept that what goes on in Nigeria as someone else's culture and as therefore acceptable, and that anything else would be Western Chauvinism. So the women gets deported back as her supposed problems are cultural issues.

For the multi-cultis would surely do this if FGM happened here. We already have cases of a judge allowing an adult male circumcision on cultural grounds,

If FGM is a reason to allow women into Ireland from certain areas of Nigeria, it is a reason to stop the men. Is that happening? Or, alternatively, if FGM is not a criteria for immigration restriction ( i.e it is argued that a cultural restriction on immigrants from nigeria for fearof their different culture is racist) then it clearly also racist for criticise FGM in Nigeria itself.

Isnt it clear that if the immigration from Nigeria continues FGM will happen here, a man will be prosecuted, a letter writer to the Irish Times will cry Racism!, and a judge will allow it on multi-cultural grounds?

This idiocy has to stop.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Found to be bogus by whom? How do you decide which ones are genuine? What criteria do you set for recourse to legal remedy?

For how long? How many rounds of judicial reviews, injunctions, appeals, etc., are reasonable? How much expense to the Irish taxpayer is reasonable? Is €300 million a year reasonable?

I think there's a lot of scope for streamlining the process.

Alternatively, we could just pick nine out of ten at random to send home, and let the rest stay. That would be cheaper. Who cares whether it's the genuine cases that are being deported? They're just foreigners.

The thread is about foreign asylum seekers, not foreign criminals.

What was that about bait-and-switch? You're the one who complained about foreigners being allowed access to our courts.

No, the core problem here is the cost to the system of charlatan, bogus asylum seekers who are simply chancing their luck—and having good success at stringing the courts and the Irish taxpayer along for years.

So streamline the system. That way the genuine cases get processed more quickly and can go on to be productive members of society. Better than bemoaning the fact that foreigners are as entitled to recourse to law as Irish citizens.

donegalfella wrote: »

But maybe OscarBravo thinks we should continue to pay more than 30 times that amount to keep bogus asylum seekers circling through the courts, so as to avoid the appearance of "xenophobia."

Ah, danger quotes. I can't possibly argue with those.

You can dig out as many links as you like, but you can't change the fact that you said it was better to spend taxpayers money on Irish drug-dealing murderers than on foreigners. Bluster all you will, but that's nothing more than xenophobia.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In terms of precedent, if she wins then others claiming fear of FGM could point to this case and say that they too should be entitled to stay. However, if she loses, that's it. Others in a similar position, or claiming to be in a similar position, won't be able to bring their case to court to try the same case again. In the long run, I think it's better that the case gets hashed out to the full now rather than have a rerun later.

marcsignal

HollyB wrote: »

In terms of precedent, if she wins then others claiming fear of FGM could point to this case and say that they too should be entitled to stay. However, if she loses, that's it. Others in a similar position, or claiming to be in a similar position, won't be able to bring their case to court to try the same case again. In the long run, I think it's better that the case gets hashed out to the full now rather than have a rerun later.

Good point, I think it's being heard by the european court on Dec 6th.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CCCP^

Anyone who would want to stay in this bloody kip certainly has won my respect. Right now from where I stand Nigeria look's pretty warm

What it comes down to is the Government taking a shot at a disliked minority. Let them stay if they want sure you'd want to be mad. Shut down Mosnia and let them all get jobs, sink or swim. Atleast then someone could say they earned their place and you wouldn't have begruder's and fools moaning on about this tripe.

asdasd

You can dig out as many links as you like, but you can't change the fact that you said it was better to spend taxpayers money on Irish drug-dealing murderers than on foreigners. Bluster all you will, but that's nothing more than xenophobia.

see what you did there, you called him xenophobic and now the debate is over cos there is no comeback from tht sorta wit.

asdasd

Right now from where I stand Nigeria look's pretty warm

thats some kind of crazy infra-red binocular vision you have there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

i was really mocking the other guy

djpbarry

CCCP^ wrote: »

Let them stay if they want sure you'd want to be mad. Shut down Mosnia and let them all get jobs, sink or swim. Atleast then someone could say they earned their place and you wouldn't have begruder's and fools moaning on about this tripe.

I seem to recall that this was attempted on a trial basis in the 90's (I think, could be wrong)? But anyway, begrudgers will always find something to whine about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Might be? Are there no genuine asylum seekers?

Nobody has claimed that the system does not need streamlining, but if that €300 million (which is about €70 out of my pocket, per annum) saves just one person from inhumane treatment, then it's money well spent, in my opinion.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the genuine applicants - does nobody benefit when they are granted asylum?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, 90% of applicants (that figure seems a little high) are not granted asylum; that does not necessarily mean their claims are "bogus", it just means they are not deemed to have grounds for asylum.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...and resident non-Irish girls .

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They might, but are non-Irish lives less valuable than Irish lives? I don't think so.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? Refugees don't work? Interesting...

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK first thing. Part of the reason that it costs so much is the Irish government's own fault. They inflated the housing market, failed to construct appropriate housing facilities for asylum seekers and now have to pay through the nose to house them in inappropriate, expensive locations, such as hotels and B&Bs.

441 children have gone missing out of HSE care since 2000. Why? Because these kids aren't being kept in appropriate accommodation and are easy prey. Almost all of these kids are foreign.

You can also lay the blame for some of the cost at the feet of the inefficient civil service.

And I have to reiterate what djpbarry asked - where exactly did you get the stat of 90% from and how was it decided on?

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You don't think she had a case. The Government didn't think she did. She and a few lawyers did. Hence the case.

rkeane wrote:

She is a total lier,.

No court has so far made such a finding. Would you care to enlighten us?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

..others whose children have died of a form of GM?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fear of a second child dying may well be emotive, but its hardly without substance or import.

rkeane

Nodin wrote: »

You don't think she had a case. The Government didn't think she did. She and a few lawyers did. Hence the case.



No court has so far made such a finding. Would you care to enlighten us?



..others whose children have died of a form of GM?



Fear of a second child dying may well be emotive, but its hardly without substance or import.

Well this "fear" won't be enough to stop her from getting kicked out. Nobody believes her, except the usual pc brigade. Its total utter waffle.

Macha

rkeane wrote: »

Well this "fear" won't be enough to stop her from getting kicked out. Nobody believes her, except the usual pc brigade. Its total utter waffle.

I'm amazed you feel in such a position of authority as to be able to decide the veracity of her case.

Are you aware of the extent of FGM in Nigeria?

Josie_dub

djpbarry wrote: »

Nobody has claimed that the system does not need streamlining,

The system has been streamlined. Nigeria is taken as a safe country of origin and therefore fastracked through the system because of the ability to relocate in such a big country and the fact that police can provide protection to families under threat.

That said all it takes is a money hungry lawyer to go down every possible avenue and drag it out for 3 years.

djpbarry

rkeane wrote: »

Nobody believes her...

Really? Seems unlikely that her case would have gotten this far if NOBODY believed her. As I said before, the authorities have accepted her version of events. What is being questioned is whether she has grounds for asylum.

Josie_dub wrote: »

Nigeria is taken as a safe country of origin and therefore fastracked through the system because of the ability to relocate in such a big country and the fact that police can provide protection to families under threat.

You don't know much about Nigeria, do you?

Amnesty International wrote:

Extrajudicial executions
Members of the police and security forces extrajudicially executed hundreds of people. These included killings by police during routine road checks or for refusing to pay a bribe, shootings of suspected armed robbers on arrest, and extrajudicial executions of detainees in police stations. The military were also frequently involved in extrajudicial executions, especially in the Niger Delta. On 27 March, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated at the Human Rights Council that Nigeria must end extrajudicial executions by police.
...
Torture and other ill-treatment
The culture of impunity for torture and ill-treatment by the police continued. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture concluded in March that torture and ill-treatment were widespread in police custody, and particularly systemic in criminal investigation departments.
...
Violence against women
In January, the Federal Minister of Women’s Affairs expressed the government’s intention to promote gender equality as well as the welfare and rights of Nigerian women and children. However, violence against women remained pervasive, including domestic violence, rape and other sexual violence by state officials and private individuals. The underlying factors included the entrenched culture of impunity for human rights violations committed by the police and security forces, and the authorities’ consistent failure to exercise due diligence in preventing and addressing sexual violence by both state and non-state actors.

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/africa/nigeria

Nodin

rkeane wrote: »

Well this "fear" won't be enough to stop her from getting kicked out. Nobody believes her, except the usual pc brigade..

....and the courts, who haven't found her to be dishonest, just that the law doesnt cover her. You keep forgetting that bit.

rkeane wrote: »

Its total utter waffle.

And you've proof of this?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

asdasd wrote: »

see what you did there, you called him xenophobic and now the debate is over cos there is no comeback from tht sorta wit.

The debate is far from over. This thread has highlighted a disturbing undercurrent of xenophobia in Irish society. I'm sorry if it offends you that I point it out for what it is, but complaining about bloody foreigners being allowed to avail of their legal rights is xenophobic. You can't polish a turd.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've admitted you don't know what methodology they use. How can you know if it's valid?

We spend €300 million each year keeping so-called asylum seekers—90 percent of whom are liars and frauds—circulating through our legal system. You seem to be suggesting that the Irish taxpayer should just grin and bear this enormous expense, because one in ten might be telling the truth.

Do me a favour and stick to discussing what I say, rather than what you imagine I seem to be suggesting.

No, I complained about charlatan asylum seekers leading our courts on a merry dance at the taxpayer's expense.

First, you're jumping to the conclusion that because she didn't win this case, it's because she is a charlatan and a liar - when it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the courts accepted her story, but didn't accept that it was grounds for asylum. Second, how do you determine which applicants have grounds and which don't, unless you go through the system?

Irish society benefits when drug-dealing murderers go to prison.

So stop giving the murderers legal aid, and take away their right to a trial. Sure, some of them might be innocent, but if 90% are guilty, that justifies restricting the rights of the 10% that are not, right?

Or does that reasoning only apply to foreigners?

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, you're arguing that we should make it as difficult as possible for them to prove that they genuinely need it.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I accept that there are a significant number of bogus asylum applicants.

We are a small country with limited resources but pretty much every country can tout that line. We accepted 117 refugees in 2005, compared to the Netherlands who accepted 419 - and their country has a population density almost 7 times that of Ireland. How do you define resources and how do you define high/low/sufficient resources?

I'm just wondering what you think the alternative is to the current system? How do you prove/disprove the chance of FGM being performed on a child?

asdasd

The debate is far from over. This thread has highlighted a disturbing undercurrent of xenophobia in Irish society. I'm sorry if it offends you that I point it out for what it is, but complaining about bloody foreigners being allowed to avail of their legal rights is xenophobic. You can't polish a turd.

Xenophoba is described as an irrational fear of foreigners. What it is not is a raional fear of abuse of the reources of this small country by the citizens of a country of 100 million people fleeing from a operation common to their culture, to a country of 4 million people. we cant afford that. Economically. Or any way.

In any case with typical multi-culti hypocrisy you would also cry racism, xenophobia; and all the other thought-police cant were someone on this thread to argue that we should ban people from Nigeria because it may imprt FGM here.

Every PC poster on this thread thinks it an argument to just chant racism or xenophobia. ****.

You've admitted you don't know what methodology they use. How can you know if it's valid?

How does he know he is not a brain in a box? Lets apply occurs razor and assume that a report in an national newspaper is true.