Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?
Options
Comments
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Have you ever read a RAT decision report? They are generally lengthy documents giving a detailed explanation why the member came to the decision that they did.
Cases against RAC are all generally being struck out because the courts have decided that it is too early in the process to be taking a legal challenge, as an appeal to RAT exists. The courts were being overwhelmed by challenges of RAC decisions.
yes actually i have, many. in fairness, many decision makers go to great lengths to give reasons for decisions. but you would expect them to. at least 2-4 pages is copy of paste, stating out the relevant legislation. (i dont not mean that in a dismissive manner)
i think, some people referring to cases being struck out on consent (where chief state solicitors agree to remitte the cases back to rat becasue the cases are too strong to defend - these are the figures no one talks about - then again there is a privacy clause in said agreements), are referring to the cases against the RAT and Minister. but yes yu are right, cases against the RAC are rather odd.
i understand that there is alot of challenges to RAC only cases at the moment and i think they are waiting on a test case to be heard, not too sure of whats going on there. but a majority of jr are primarily challenges to the RAT decision.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
There were a few things about the 'Would you Believe (this case has cost 500'000Euro)' Documentary I found interesting. I can recall Pamela saying she wasn't aware these documents were forged, at the time they were surrendered to the court. When confronted with the fact they were forged, she said:
"I won't apologise to anyone for doing what I did to protect my children"
That presumably includes to deliberately and knowingly committing pergury ?
Pamela recounts a conversation she had with her husband "Tony" before one of the court hearings, when she was waiting for "Tony" to send her the Doctors Report. She claims that "Tony" said the doctor would not provide him with the report, and that he said that 'they would have to find another way'.
That would suggest to me that she (Pamela), was in fact aware that these documents were forged, when she surrendered them to our courts.
"Rosanna Flynn" from 'Residents Against Racism', was seen standing outside the court with a plackard saying:
"Dont let Daughters suffer abuse as their Mother did"
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Pamela made it clear more than once that she herself was never subjected to FGM? She even says so in the programme itself. In fact she says, and I quote:
"I was not brought up in such an environment, I was a grown woman before I even knew what FGM was"
It seems perculiar that "Rosanna Flynn", one of Pamelas staunchest, and most militant supporters would not know this, doesn't it ?? Was Rosanna Flynn misinformed ? Or didn't she want the truth to stand in the way of a good old bit of hysterical scaremongering, while she was getting her fizog on the goggle box ?
Antonia Leslie, in a skilful bit of personal damage limitation to her own credibility, towards the end of the programme, says :
"Maybe I've been totally Duped, but I still believe she (Pamela) is in danger"
In danger from what ?? and who ?? I thought it was the Kids who were in danger ?
.0 -
Poster girl for Intelligent Design, TBH.marcsignal wrote: »Antonia Leslie towards the end says :
"Maybe I've been totally Duped, but I still believe she (Pamela) is in danger"
In danger from what ?? and who ??0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
walrusgumble wrote: »yes actually i have, many. in fairness, many decision makers go to great lengths to give reasons for decisions. but you would expect them to. at least 2-4 pages is copy of paste, stating out the relevant legislation. (i dont not mean that in a dismissive manner)
i think, some people referring to cases being struck out on consent (where chief state solicitors agree to remitte the cases back to rat becasue the cases are too strong to defend - these are the figures no one talks about - then again there is a privacy clause in said agreements), are referring to the cases against the RAT and Minister. but yes yu are right, cases against the RAC are rather odd.
i understand that there is alot of challenges to RAC only cases at the moment and i think they are waiting on a test case to be heard, not too sure of whats going on there. but a majority of jr are primarily challenges to the RAT decision.
All of the Judicial Review cases against the RAC are on hold at the moment. This is due to the fact that a recent decision apparently raised questions as to whether there should be a judicial review of any RAC decision as there is an appeal to the RAT which could sort out any problems with the RAC decision. The problem is that practitioners are unsure of how to interpret the findings in this case when applied to other cases. As a result there are several test cases on this term to find out this. i.e. test cases to find out how to apply the findings of a test case!
Not all of the RAC cases will get thrown out though as some appeals to the RAT do not get the benefit of an oral interview (i.e. the appeal is only based on papers submitted by the applicant) depending on the findings of the RAC. If the basis of the RAC finding causes a papers only appeal, then it could be argued that there should be a JR of that decision if that finding is unfair, etc.0 -
To be honest, the LTS brigade never seemed to pay too much attention to the facts surrounding this case, and I don't think they are going to start now.
From the outset their campaign has always been full of emotive tripe devoid of the facts surrounding this particular case, which was aimed at the masses to garner sympathy for them in the hope that the court of public opinion will allow them to stay.
Rosanna Flynn is a spokeswoman for Residents Against Racism. What possible relevence does her opinion have to this case, and why was she given air time on the main evening news for it? Where has Pamela been subject to racist abuse in this case? All she can offer is more emotive drivel to ask the people of ireland not to let her children suffer the abuse Pamela did.
As pamela has said, she was not brought up in this environment and didn't know what FGM was until she was an adult. Clearly she has not been subject to abuse, yet RTE feel that its relevent to broadcast the opinion of a spokeswoman for a group that has no part of this case. Not to mention the whole issue of her comments being completely devoid of any facts - yet again.
Why is this, and why did RTE not ask the opinion of one who's thoughts would have relevence to the case, or the opinion of someone who would give consideration for the facts of the matter?
Yet another attempt of the LTS to throw evidence and facts to the wind and use scaremongering (thanks for the word DF) to tug at the heart strings of Ireland instead.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
There might be a reason in Christian Rule No. 9 here :pac:0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
marcsignal wrote: »There might be a reason in Christian Rule No. 9 here :pac:
Interesting how honour thy father and thy mother is there.0 -
Advertisement
-
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
I wonder how long it will take for them to bring the race card into it.0 -
This Residents against Racism rent a crowd should be bloody abolished.
This has ZERO to do with racism, it's an immigration issue and a case
involving the rights of person to stay in this country. It has zero to do with RACE!0 -
This Residents against Racism rent a crowd should be bloody abolished.
This has ZERO to do with racism, it's an immigration issue and a case
involving the rights of person to stay in this country. It has zero to do with RACE!
Agreed, their stance of No Deportations in every case brings nothing to a logical balanced debate on the issue of asylum/immigration in this country. The State wouldn't have to deport anyone if those who have failed asylum and accepted the decision of the Minister to make a deportation order against them, removed themselves from this jurisdiction as required.
Those who have criticised the failure of RAC and RAT to investigate the authenticity of the death certificate and the many holes in Pamela's story should remember that she would have been deported many years ago had she not broken immigration law and evaded deportation.0 -
This Residents against Racism rent a crowd should be bloody abolished.
This has ZERO to do with racism, it's an immigration issue and a case
involving the rights of person to stay in this country. It has zero to do with RACE!
+1 Well said !
The fact is, true 'Racism' (which, in reality, we have very little of here, in comparison to the UK and Europe) is a very very serious social issue, it's a distgusting thing to blight any society, and it is far to serious and complexed an issue, to be left in the hands of 'attention seeking clowns' like Rosanna Flynn and her merry men.0 -
Who Ms Flynn is or Residents Against Racism are, is not actually all that important in the grand scheme of things. Journalists are notoriously lazy people. One of the first things you learn about writing a press release, for example, is never to copy protect it as many will simply cut and paste from it, with few if any editorial of their own. As such, 'kitchen committee' interest groups such as Residents Against Racism, Youth Defence or whoever are a good source for journos who want to be able to pick up the phone, get a quick quote from someone apparently relevant so they can quickly turn in their piece and feck off down to the pub.Rosanna Flynn is a spokeswoman for Residents Against Racism. What possible relevence does her opinion have to this case, and why was she given air time on the main evening news for it? Where has Pamela been subject to racist abuse in this case? All she can offer is more emotive drivel to ask the people of ireland not to let her children suffer the abuse Pamela did.
Actually, I've always been surprised how no one has bothered setting up a similar organization just for the laugh. How about, Employees Against Tax Exploitation? Knock up a quick Web site (pull a few pics from random demonstrations - there must be at least one on the Interweb without Richard Boyd Barrett) and attribute them on the site to the organization), write a press release coinciding with the budget tax hikes that will "punish the average PAYE worker, forcing them to pick up the bill for the excesses of a few greedy bankers and property developers" and then email all the relevant journos.
While unnecessary and potentially risky (in the unlikely event that someone checks the sources) you could also include a fictional study (with stats) on how there is a correlation between tax levels and suicide rates and attribute it to two fictional academics, at least one of whom will have a Jewish name, so as to add authenticity.
Guaranteed that you'll get coverage and, from that, follow up calls for comment in future articles. Dance puppets, dance!0 -
Sounds very like the gameplan for the Progressive Democrats.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, I've always been surprised how no one has bothered setting up a similar organization just for the laugh. How about, Employees Against Tax Exploitation? Knock up a quick Web site (pull a few pics from random demonstrations - there must be at least one on the Interweb without Richard Boyd Barrett) and attribute them on the site to the organization), write a press release coinciding with the budget tax hikes that will "punish the average PAYE worker, forcing them to pick up the bill for the excesses of a few greedy bankers and property developers" and then email all the relevant journos.
While unnecessary and potentially risky (in the unlikely event that someone checks the sources) you could also include a fictional study (with stats) on how there is a correlation between tax levels and suicide rates and attribute it to two fictional academics, at least one of whom will have a Jewish name, so as to add authenticity.
Guaranteed that you'll get coverage and, from that, follow up calls for comment in future articles. Dance puppets, dance!
Regards...jmcc0 -
A lot of people seem to think that there is an racist tint to her deportation. I was discussing it with some people yesterday and when I said "She's knowingly broken our laws and cost us hundreds of thousands of euros in a time when we need to be looking after our own". I was called a racist, bigot and had two of the people I was talking to swore "To have nothing to do with you ever again".
I was trying to point out that I was'nt in fact making a racist comment and asked if it had been a white African male trying to save his two boys from mutilation would it be such a big issue. I was told "That's different, it's tradition in many African countries". After that comment I just gave up.0 -
marcsignal wrote: »+1 Well said !
The fact is, true 'Racism' (which, in reality, we have very little of here, in comparison to the UK and Europe) is a very very serious social issue, it's a distgusting thing to blight any society, and it is far to serious and complexed an issue, to be left in the hands of 'attention seeking clowns' like Rosanna Flynn and her merry men.
Out of curiosity can you explain to me 'true' racism as you understand it and if possible give me an example of the very little we have here, compared to the UK and Europe?0 -
blackiebest wrote: »Out of curiosity can you explain to me 'true' racism as you understand it and if possible give me an example of the very little we have here, compared to the UK and Europe?
well we have no political movements like the BNP or National Front, that campaign on the basis of race, and have repatriation as a part of their manifesto. We don't have gangs of violent racist skinhead groups, like they have all over continental europe, and the last time I checked we have nothing like the amount of violence towards people of other races in this country, that happen on a regular basis in the UK and Continental Europe.
I'm not saying for a minute that no evidence of Racism exists in Ireland, not at all, but certain groups in Ireland would consider you racist, if you didn't like Hip Hop, and that's not at all the same thing.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »A lot of people seem to think that there is an racist tint to her deportation. I was discussing it with some people yesterday and when I said "She's knowingly broken our laws and cost us hundreds of thousands of euros in a time when we need to be looking after our own". I was called a racist, bigot and had two of the people I was talking to swore "To have nothing to do with you ever again".
I was trying to point out that I was'nt in fact making a racist comment and asked if it had been a white African male trying to save his two boys from mutilation would it be such a big issue. I was told "That's different, it's tradition in many African countries". After that comment I just gave up.
Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people in this world. Their brains are simple so they cannot see past the fact that she's black. It would make me think they themselves have race issues, as OMG SHE'S BLACK is their overwhelming thought.
And don't get me started on the Residents Against Racism type organisations. I've had the misfortune to have to work with some of these groups, and they are full of utter retards.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »A lot of people seem to think that there is an racist tint to her deportation. I was discussing it with some people yesterday and when I said "She's knowingly broken our laws and cost us hundreds of thousands of euros in a time when we need to be looking after our own". I was called a racist, bigot and had two of the people I was talking to swore "To have nothing to do with you ever again".
I was trying to point out that I was'nt in fact making a racist comment and asked if it had been a white African male trying to save his two boys from mutilation would it be such a big issue. I was told "That's different, it's tradition in many African countries". After that comment I just gave up.
with the exception (most of the time) on this website, when has there ever being a good public debate on any issue before irrelevant things and personal abuse is thown back at the person who raises the debate? no wonder why politicans run a mile when important issues like asylum and immigration crop up into the public arena.
ay well, i guess you will know next time who to speak to about senstive issues.0 -
blueythebear wrote: »All of the Judicial Review cases against the RAC are on hold at the moment. This is due to the fact that a recent decision apparently raised questions as to whether there should be a judicial review of any RAC decision as there is an appeal to the RAT which could sort out any problems with the RAC decision. The problem is that practitioners are unsure of how to interpret the findings in this case when applied to other cases. As a result there are several test cases on this term to find out this. i.e. test cases to find out how to apply the findings of a test case!
Not all of the RAC cases will get thrown out though as some appeals to the RAT do not get the benefit of an oral interview (i.e. the appeal is only based on papers submitted by the applicant) depending on the findings of the RAC. If the basis of the RAC finding causes a papers only appeal, then it could be argued that there should be a JR of that decision if that finding is unfair, etc.
well, they are cases worthy enough for JR hearing. its cases like the above that show why there are so asylum judicial reviews. (lack of transparency and standards - in fairness legislators cant really foresee everything) because unlike, say britian, why they have benefit of more years experience in setting out guidelines and caselaw, ireland is fairly behind. in fairness, people just seek cases being refused and not look at the significance of some of them. some cases, like in other areas of law, whilst may have lost, still set out precedent or confirm the law as to certain issues. in one respect, and in defence to this lady, the case must have (on basis of info she had given) some merit as it would not have even reached the doors of the Supreme Court or ECtHR0 -
blueythebear wrote: »All of the Judicial Review cases against the RAC are on hold at the moment. This is due to the fact that a recent decision apparently raised questions as to whether there should be a judicial review of any RAC decision as there is an appeal to the RAT which could sort out any problems with the RAC decision. The problem is that practitioners are unsure of how to interpret the findings in this case when applied to other cases. As a result there are several test cases on this term to find out this. i.e. test cases to find out how to apply the findings of a test case!
Not all of the RAC cases will get thrown out though as some appeals to the RAT do not get the benefit of an oral interview (i.e. the appeal is only based on papers submitted by the applicant) depending on the findings of the RAC. If the basis of the RAC finding causes a papers only appeal, then it could be argued that there should be a JR of that decision if that finding is unfair, etc.
I am dumbfounded that JR cases are being instigated before the process was even exhausted. It appears there is no end that the legal vultures will not exploit. Judicial reviews, test cases, challenges to every single stage and piece of paper produced.
Quite the bonanza.
I note that it appears you were correct that very few cases are taken pro bono as this article notes:
http://news.myhome.ie/newspaper/front/2008/0104/1199313419896.htmlLenihan blames barristers for delays in asylum appeals
Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, Migration Correspondent
Minister of State for Integration Conor Lenihan has blamed cases taken by a "voracious group of barristers" for the "grief and difficulty" surrounding the asylum process.
Comparing the "industry" around asylum appeals to the long-running controversy over Army deafness claims, he said: "Something is going to have to be done about this - in the same way that we had to act and do something to protect taxpayers' money and time with regard to Army deafness."
Arguing that a strong asylum regime is essential to maintain public confidence in migration policy, Mr Lenihan said the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill would tighten the system and shorten the initial waiting times for decisions. Applications for asylum have been falling steadily for years, from more than 11,500 in 2002 to fewer than 4,500 last year.
"If you don't control the flow of people and if our own population sense that the system is open to abuse . . . it really does wreck the whole perception of migration for everyone else. That's not a good thing," he said in an interview with The Irish Times.
Immigrant advocacy groups are critical of the State's "direct provision" system, where asylum seekers are given accommodation, meals and a weekly allowance of €19.10 but are precluded from seeking paid work. Mr Lenihan insisted the "grief and difficulty" around the system was due to delays caused by the volume of appeals.
"The major delays in settling and dealing with asylum applications at the moment is principally focused on the legal challenges that are being taken by a very active and voracious group of barristers down in the Bar library who are representing clients virtually on a 'no foal, no fee' basis," he said.
Vulnerable asylum seekers were being given unrealistic hopes by some lawyers when in most cases their chances of a successful appeal were limited, he continued."We'll have to persuade the Bar library and the legal profession to perhaps ease off and stop throwing cases into the High Court automatically.
We had similar experiences with the legal profession with regard to Army deafness, and people had to talk to them and say: 'Look, this isn't on."
"
I note that the law society is highly critical of the immigration bill of 2008 plan to saddle the solicitors with the costs of frivolous and vexatious claims. What a surprise. I take it that as of now, the penniless asylum seeker is technically stuck with the costs of a failed action.
Hardly that much of a loss to the solicitor when the possibility of a whopping €30,000 - €50,000 payout lies around the corner with the next mug, with no claim outside of a legal technicality and all the reason in the world to welcome another few years of taxpayer funded largesse. And all the better for some to indulge in a little additional fraud and criminality as my previous link suggested.
When one considers the average industrial wage is about €32,000 - it puts these "fees" into perspective.
The time to curtail these ambulance chasers is long overdue.0 -
fishtits spent the guts of ten years in Africa, all kinds of s*it goes on, but in this particular case I'm of the opinion she's chancing her lot.
She's obviously of the better enumerated class, thus better advised.0 -
The most fascinating fact for me is how new this whole asylum thing is. Did someone just invent it because we didn't have floods of refugees before the celtic tiger?0
-
I am dumbfounded that JR cases are being instigated before the process was even exhausted. It appears there is no end that the legal vultures will not exploit. Judicial reviews, test cases, challenges to every single stage and piece of paper produced.
Quite the bonanza.
I note that it appears you were correct that very few cases are taken pro bono as this article notes:
http://news.myhome.ie/newspaper/front/2008/0104/1199313419896.html
I note that the law society is highly critical of the immigration bill of 2008 plan to saddle the solicitors with the costs of frivolous and vexatious claims. What a surprise. I take it that as of now, the penniless asylum seeker is technically stuck with the costs of a failed action.
Hardly that much of a loss to the solicitor when the possibility of a whopping €30,000 - €50,000 payout lies around the corner with the next mug, with no claim outside of a legal technicality and all the reason in the world to welcome another few years of taxpayer funded largesse. And all the better for some to indulge in a little additional fraud and criminality as my previous link suggested.
When one considers the average industrial wage is about €32,000 - it puts these "fees" into perspective.
The time to curtail these ambulance chasers is long overdue.
Judicial Review needs to be available at every stage of the process as conclusions in the applications later in the road can be drawn from the earlier information given in RAC interviews etc. Also, the High Court rules set down strict time limits in JRing any decision so that the JR must be taken very soon after any decision issues anyway.
In relation to the Immigration Bill 2008, the Law Society is critical as solicitors already can get penalized for frivolous / vexatious claims and the Bill merely increases the penalties. This wouldn’t be such an issue except for the fact that the Bill also introduces VERY restrictive timescales in relation to bringing an action for judicial review, meaning the solicitor has less time to analyse if there is a case to be heard. Also, a solicitor will usually rely on the advice of a barrister in seeing if there is a case to be answered, yet the barrister can’t get penalized for his advice.
I think it’s unfair to intimate that solicitors are raking it in with these cases. If it’s a good case and you win you’ll get an amount in costs that reflects the work done on the case and no more due to the possibility of the Taxing Masters Court. €35k costs is not that much if you consider that there are barristers fees to take into account (Senior and Junior Counsel usually) and then the solicitors fees for work done (in a case that would call for 4-5 appearances in the High Court plus a day in the High Court for the hearing of the matter, never mind for the work done in analyzing all the paperwork, etc).
Judicial Reviews can be based on a legal technicality alright but more often than not, they're based on fundamental unfairness in a decision. For example, say I was an asylum seeker and to my RAT interview I bring 5 independent reports saying my particular ethnic group in my home country are persecuted by the Government. Then the decisionmaker uses a single sentence from one of these reports that suggests that things are getting better because there is a law that disallows such persecution (even though all the reports say that this law is not enforced in any way in my country). If the decisionmaker was to rely on that sentence alone to refuse my claim then there would be grounds for me to JR that decision for selective application of that information. That's not a technical legal point. It's a fundamentally unfair decision and in this case, a judicial review would be warranted.
I disagree totally that asylum law is a stomping ground for the immigration equivalent of ambulance chasing. It’s a fact that the only way a solicitor can earn a living in this area of law is through successful judicial reviews. Such cases are only successful if they raise relevant points of law.0 -
blueythebear wrote: »Judicial Review needs to be available at every stage of the process as conclusions in the applications later in the road can be drawn from the earlier information given in RAC interviews etc. Also, the High Court rules set down strict time limits in JRing any decision so that the JR must be taken very soon after any decision issues anyway.
This is all very well except that this methodology is wide open to abuse. After all – why not start by judicially reviewing the initial application or the oral interview if you feel that it wasn’t what you expected? And continue taking every other single step of the way to the courts?blueythebear wrote: »In relation to the Immigration Bill 2008, the Law Society is critical as solicitors already can get penalized for frivolous / vexatious claims and the Bill merely increases the penalties.
The bill allows the solicitors to be liable for (all or part of) the costs of proceedings. I have seen no mention of penalties. As for your claim that that solicitors can already be penalised for frivolous / vexatious claims, that may be true but I know of not one single instance where this has occurred. Do you? If this is indeed the case and the penalties do not exceed full costs - at worst, then what exactly is the law society whining about? Its hardly that difficult to decipher if you are arguing a point of exceptional public importance or simply wasting everyones time and money.blueythebear wrote: »This wouldn’t be such an issue except for the fact that the Bill also introduces VERY restrictive timescales in relation to bringing an action for judicial review, meaning the solicitor has less time to analyse if there is a case to be heard. Also, a solicitor will usually rely on the advice of a barrister in seeing if there is a case to be answered, yet the barrister can’t get penalized for his advice.
This is rich when one considers the virtual flood of activity the courts see from semi-dormant solicitors and their “clients” immediately preceding a deportation for example. After all, why argue for long winded decisions on the one hand, that you cannot subsequently digest in a few short weeks.blueythebear wrote: »I think it’s unfair to intimate that solicitors are raking it in with these cases. If it’s a good case and you win you’ll get an amount in costs that reflects the work done on the case and no more due to the possibility of the Taxing Masters Court. €35k costs is not that much if you consider that there are barristers fees to take into account (Senior and Junior Counsel usually) and then the solicitors fees for work done (in a case that would call for 4-5 appearances in the High Court plus a day in the High Court for the hearing of the matter, never mind for the work done in analyzing all the paperwork, etc).
The volume of individuals involved and the fees generated by this structure are of course often mentioned as one of the fundamental reasons why ordinary citizens cannot access our courts. This, as you are probably aware, is a structure inherently self serving, highly lucrative for some and extremely resistant to change. Add a few more hangers on and charge a hundred thousand and of course it can still be made sound perfectly reasonable. To the taxpayer though, it’s not.blueythebear wrote: »Judicial Reviews can be based on a legal technicality alright but more often than not, they're based on fundamental unfairness in a decision. For example, say I was an asylum seeker and to my RAT interview I bring 5 independent reports saying my particular ethnic group in my home country are persecuted by the Government. Then the decisionmaker uses a single sentence from one of these reports that suggests that things are getting better because there is a law that disallows such persecution (even though all the reports say that this law is not enforced in any way in my country). If the decisionmaker was to rely on that sentence alone to refuse my claim then there would be grounds for me to JR that decision for selective application of that information. That's not a technical legal point. It's a fundamentally unfair decision and in this case, a judicial review would be warranted.
What you are forgetting here is that several factors come into play in addition to focusing on third party reports. There are issues to do with why the individual is here, how they came to be here, what efforts they made to combat the alleged persecution in their homeland, credibility, etc etc. There is an entire structure set up under and with the blessing of the UNHCR to assess all facets of a claim.
Forget the fact that the assessors are expected to forget that asylum claims come from identical countries with identical stories and the fact that nothing substantial from the legal end has been criticised by the UNHCR (for example - lack of legal support) who are also keenly aware that the asylum provisions, in practice, are a source of abuse and indeed, tension in most Western countries.blueythebear wrote: »I disagree totally that asylum law is a stomping ground for the immigration equivalent of ambulance chasing. It’s a fact that the only way a solicitor can earn a living in this area of law is through successful judicial reviews. Such cases are only successful if they raise relevant points of law.
I am aware that points of law are all that may be argued. It’s a fact ruefully commented upon by many a Judge and no doubt by many a solicitor. It also underlines the fact that most cases could be carried out without the benefit of the asylum applicant who has little more to gain then a reassessment where the other aforementioned factors, credibility, truthfulness etc, once again come into play and will probably again, result in a rejected claim. As for making a living in this area, the costs associated with claims have feathered the nest of many from slum landlords to High court judges. As a taxpayer observing this mess, I am concerned with scale and scalability in general, and in particular with the legal end of processing bogus asylum claims - and in my opinion, it is out of control. I am not optimistic it will be finally tackled in the forthcoming immigration bill as it faces legal resistance and all the problems tackling such a vested interest – but it is a start.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
And if they get their way this time, it will also be the argument they use next time a Nigerian woman or couple turns up on our shores, photogenic daughter(s) in tow; so what if there's no evidence of any specific risk and FGM is usually performed at the behest of the unfortunate girl's parents, consent that is clearly not an issue in this case, since they've taken her out of the country, supposedly to avoid the procedure? They're from a country where 33% of girls are subjected to FGM, that means that there's a 1 in 3 chance that they'll be mutilated if you send them back!!!
They have to be granted asylum and citizenship, logic and reason be damned.
If we were talking about a young woman, say a teenager, who escaped because her family were trying to make her undergo the procedure, that would be one thing but, in the absence of parental consent, I doubt that Nigeria has special FGM police who go around armed with razor blades, checking to make sure every girl is circumcised and performing amateur surgery if they find one who isn't.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Anti Pam:
"And if they get their way this time, it will also be the argument they use next time a Nigerian woman or couple turns up on our shores, photogenic daughter(s) in tow"
Neutralish:
"so what if there's no evidence of any specific risk and FGM is usually performed at the behest of the unfortunate girl's parents, consent that is clearly not an issue in this case, since they've taken her out of the country, supposedly to avoid the procedure?"
Pro Pam:
"They're from a country where 33% of girls are subjected to FGM, that means that there's a 1 in 3 chance that they'll be mutilated if you send them back!!!"
More Pro than Pam herself!
"They have to be granted asylum and citizenship, logic and reason be damned."
And finally, one that perhaps only HollyB understands
"If we were talking about a young woman, say a teenager, who escaped because her family were trying to make her undergo the procedure, that would be one thing but, in the absence of parental consent, I doubt that Nigeria has special FGM police who go around armed with razor blades, checking to make sure every girl is circumcised and performing amateur surgery if they find one who isn't."
I'm tired!
Papa0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement