Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

The Raven.

Souljacker wrote: »

You're completely right to pick me up on this point. It was completely the wrong choice of words to use and as such I was rightly berated for it. In the future I won't post at 2am in the middle of the night.

Last night I magnificently failed to articulate my 2 parted point so let me try again to voice my reasoning in a way that (hopefully) won't attract such a hostile response.

Thank you for that. I don't think I was being hostile !

Souljacker

The Raven. wrote: »

Thank you for that. I don't think I was being hostile !

No you weren’t. However it was implied by other posters that I was a racist and intolerant., that's what I was referring to.

O'Coonassa

opo wrote: »

So if Izevbekhai or other frauds without just cause, wish to baselessly invade my home and/or country, I am duty bound to my myself and my childern to resist. Agreed?

Your home yes. But who gave you a whole country? You don't own any country or where's the deeds opo? As for people invading 'baselessly' and 'without just cause' that's a value judgement that ignores the fact we should all be free to move around our planet.

O'Coonassa

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hmmm....drawing from the rich vein of "interesting interpretive" posts I suspect your answer will read something like this.........



To which I would add.........

opo mistakenly thinks he owns a whole country, but there's a difference between telling outright lies and being mistaken

turgon

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Clearly The Law about murder is an ancient Law held by our Ancestors because of the very clear need for it. Life is Sacred. That's The Law.

Clearly the other law that surrounds the imaginary makey uppy borders is just made up nonsense aimed at keeping the poor down South and stopping all of us from freely wandering our Earth. It cuts against The Law.

In your opinion.

ParkRunner

O'Coonassa wrote: »

ignores the fact we should all be free to move around our planet.

You are free to move around the planet once you respect the same laws that apply to everyone. Pamela if she wished could have easily sought to get a visa (like she did in the UK) to come here but she came here as an asylum seeker instead and broke immigration laws when she evaded her deportation. No one would have any problem with her being here if she just obeyed the law.

AlekSmart

Pamela if she wished could have easily sought to get a visa (like she did in the UK) to come here but she came here as an asylum seeker instead and broke immigration laws when she evaded her deportation. No one would have any problem with her being here if she just obeyed the law.

Just to retreat a wee bit from the supposed meglomania of "owning the country" it`s sometimes beneficial to actually revisit the mechanics of Pamela Izevbekhai`s convoluted route into this country.

So many questions,so many contrived and inexplicable moves on her behalf which the Irish State is asked to accept without questioning the actions of the applicant......Sorry,but Ms Izevbekhai by her actions and subsequent attempts to ignore and bypass the regulatory process applying to everybody placed herself AND HER CHILDREN in this position.

rkeane

AlekSmart wrote: »

Just to retreat a wee bit from the supposed meglomania of "owning the country" it`s sometimes beneficial to actually revisit the mechanics of Pamela Izevbekhai`s convoluted route into this country.

So many questions,so many contrived and inexplicable moves on her behalf which the Irish State is asked to accept without questioning the actions of the applicant......Sorry,but Ms Izevbekhai by her actions and subsequent attempts to ignore and bypass the regulatory process applying to everybody placed herself AND HER CHILDREN in this position.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

jmcc

O'Coonassa wrote: »

You are a European, historically you don't do reasonable.

That is an extraordinarily racist bit of rubbish. Perhaps what you really mean is that we "white" Europeans don't do "reason" in the way that you would like - accepting lies and forged documentation. Reason happens to be the basis of law and society. Reason is a threat to people such as yourself, the LTS mob and RAR because it requires people to think rather than to blindly accept what they are told. Evidence is one of the main factors in that process. In this particular case, there has been abject forgery and lies. This is a cold, calculating and premeditated attempt at deceiving the Irish people and the Irish courts.

Regards...jmcc

O'Coonassa

EF wrote: »

You are free to move around the planet once you respect the same laws that apply to everyone.

You are mistaken EF, you are very priviledged, they'll let you and me in almost anywhere, but the same laws don't apply to everyone. For instance I can hop on a plane and go and see mates in Malawi or Swaziland no bother. If they want to come and see me here though there are lots of hoops that they'd be made to jump through and not all of them would be able. There's no parity of law. There's a global Apartheid complete with pass laws.

EF wrote: »

Pamela if she wished could have easily sought to get a visa (like she did in the UK) to come here but she came here as an asylum seeker instead and broke immigration laws when she evaded her deportation. No one would have any problem with her being here if she just obeyed the law.

Do you think that the Penal Laws that our Ancestors suffered under were correct and just and didn't deserve to be broken? Just because humans make up a new law it doesn't mean that it is automatically worthy of respect. People should be free to wander God's Earth, whatever gets in the way of that is wrong.

O'Coonassa

jmcc wrote: »

That is an extraordinarily racist bit of rubbish.

Read a history book and bring your 'proof' that slavery and the scamble for Africa or neo-colonialism and protectionism and the CAP are in fact fair and reasonable. They weren't nor aren't. Besides European is a culture not a 'race'.

jmcc

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Read a history book

I have. And I've read a lot more than one.

and bring your 'proof' that slavery

There is a rather uncomfortable truth for happy-clappies such as yourself that slavery existed for thousands of years - in Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Africans were enslaving each other just as it went on elsewhere in the world. Some of the great ports in Africa were heavily based on slavery and it was Africans enslaving other Africans as the basis of this commerce. History, you will find, is rarely as clear cut as a simple Sunday magazine article.

and the scamble for Africa

Societies expand and they require resources. They either acquire these resources by trade or by conquest. You can see the same patterns throughout history. It is the history of the Human race rather than the happy-clappy, let's all be friends view of history. It is frequently bloody, often nasty, and the product of a ruthless quest for survival.

or neo-colonialism

Neo-colonialism? So it is ok to have the Chinese take over African resources but the nasty Europeans and Americans have to be kept out at all costs? Even the phrase "neo-colonialism" reeks of 1970s Marxist-Leninist "thinking".

CAP are in fact fair and reasonable.

So what does the CAP have to do with a bogus asylum seeker and an Irish court case?

Besides European is a culture not a 'race'.

A European is a resident of a well defined set of nations each with their own history. These are societies based on laws created by their own people. You evidently do not respect those laws or those societies or those people.

Regards...jmcc

ParkRunner

O'Coonassa wrote: »

You are mistaken EF, you are very priviledged, they'll let you and me in almost anywhere, but the same laws don't apply to everyone. For instance I can hop on a plane and go and see mates in Malawi or Swaziland no bother. If they want to come and see me here though there are lots of hoops that they'd be made to jump through and not all of them would be able. There's no parity of law. There's a global Apartheid complete with pass laws. .

You mean get a holiday visa to come here to visit you? It's not that hard to get one to come here. Irish people who break the law abroad are not treated too great either.

Do you think that the Penal Laws that our Ancestors suffered under were correct and just and didn't deserve to be broken? Just because humans make up a new law it doesn't mean that it is automatically worthy of respect. People should be free to wander God's Earth, whatever gets in the way of that is wrong

That's all well and good back in the 1800's and most of the 1900's but people are a lot more mobile now than they used to be. Has Nigeria altered that drastically in the last 15 years that thousands of people suddenly feel the need to come to Ireland and make, in the majority of cases, manifestly unfounded applications for asylum?

You can if you want travel to Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Iran, Pakistan but best of luck to you if you do!

jmcc

O'Coonassa wrote: »

For instance I can hop on a plane and go and see mates in Malawi or Swaziland no bother.

We have something similar here in Europe. Then again that's based on a common framework of movement within the EU.

If they want to come and see me here though there are lots of hoops that they'd be made to jump through and not all of them would be able.

That's because they are not European. People from the USA and countries outside the EU also have to follow the regulations just as anyone from the EU would have to follow US law when in the USA.

There's no parity of law.

There is no legal agreement for a common travel area.

Do you think that the Penal Laws that our Ancestors suffered under were correct and just and didn't deserve to be broken?

Are you Irish? I ask that question because the spelling of your nick is rather curious - as if it is spelled phonetically. I have never heard of the people who died in the Famine referred to by Irish people as "our Ancestors". Indeed the phrase suggest some kind of massive disconnect as if you are talking about people with whom you have nothing in common. The immediate identification of what you refer to as "our Ancestors" would narrowly be "the Irish people" or on a wider basis "Irish Catholics". Many would consider them as relatives who died rather than "our Ancestors". Referring to them by your term is just a completely alien way of thinking. There is a continuity of thought in Irish history of a place and people that defines us as a society and as a nation. It is the quintessential "We Irish". That's why I find your phrase more like one that you found in a rather dry history of Ireland.

Just to explain the Penal Laws: They were not our laws. They were imposed on the Irish people by a foreign power.

Just because humans make up a new law it doesn't mean that it is automatically worthy of respect.

When a society makes its own laws, then members of that society tend to respect them. I wonder if you are even aware of the process of how laws are made.

People should be free to wander God's Earth, whatever gets in the way of that is wrong.

Obviously not a student of the Bible. When Jesus was doing his forty day stint in the desert, the Devil told him that if he would agree to terms, all that he could see would be his. Given how things work, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Devil had the lease.

Regards...jmcc

HollyB

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Your home yes. But who gave you a whole country? You don't own any country or where's the deeds opo?

I would say that the citizens of Ireland collectively own the country and, as such, they have a right to decide who may and may not come to their country, just as opo is entitled to decide who may enter his or her home and who may not.

In the event of a dispute among the citizens - ie. those who believe that anybody who wants to come to Ireland should be allowed to come to Ireland vs. those who feel that immigration should be restricted - the wishes of the majority must take precedence, and they should vote accordingly to ensure that this is done, electing representatives who will work to see that their wishes guide the immigration process.

jmcc

HollyB wrote: »

In the event of a dispute among the citizens - ie. those who believe that anybody who wants to come to Ireland should be allowed to come to Ireland vs. those who feel that immigration should be restricted - the wishes of the majority must take precedence

Which is basically what happened with the Citizenship Referendum a few years ago.

Regards...jmcc

opo

HollyB wrote: »

I would say that the citizens of Ireland collectively own the country and, as such, they have a right to decide who may and may not come to their country, just as opo is entitled to decide who may enter his or her home and who may not.

In the event of a dispute among the citizens - ie. those who believe that anybody who wants to come to Ireland should be allowed to come to Ireland vs. those who feel that immigration should be restricted - the wishes of the majority must take precedence, and they should vote accordingly to ensure that this is done, electing representatives who will work to see that their wishes guide the immigration process.

Cheers Hollyb, TBH, I wasn't even going to reply to his absurd response.

HollyB

jmcc wrote: »

Which is basically what happened with the Citizenship Referendum a few years ago.

Regards...jmcc

Precisely. If people want open borders, it's up to them to make their feelings known by voting for politicians who will carry out their wishes, just as those who want immigration controlled should make their feelings known by voting for politicians who share their view. Let the majority decide.

If, for example, Rosanna Flynn as RAR was to run for office as a TD in the next general election as an independent candidate with a platform of completely open borders, how good would you say her chances of being elected would be?

AlekSmart

If, for example, Rosanna Flynn as RAR was to run for office as a TD in the next general election as an independent candidate with a platform of completely open borders, how good would you say her chances of being elected would be?

Top Stuff HollyB.

Whilst having a degree of empathy for O Coonassa`s somewhat tortured reasoning I still see the essential emptiness of the LTS,RAR and Izevbekhai campaigns.

O Coonassa appears to espouse a Nirvana of wide open,non-policed continents peopled by pleasant,law abiding,peace loving humans of impeccable taste and table manners.

I too would fervently wish for such a world,but I know that once attained,it`s conformity,uniformity and lack of joie de vivre would soon spell it`s undoing.

The imperfect world(s) we currently inhabit do actually function to as great a degree as possible for MOST inhabitants.
The purpose of any asylum system is to attempt to cater for the needs of those who,through no fault of their own would experience harm by continuing inhabitance of "Their" own homeland.

The only REAL progression of the LTS/RAR groups is through the universal sufferage route and no better platform upon which to base a campaign than the Izevbekhai case and their support of it.

That should be the advice to ANY of the Izevbekhai campaigners.......VOTE for your convictions and change the System legally...IF you can....IF you cannot do that then it may well be that democracy just ain`t for you.... :eek:

opo

HollyB wrote: »

Precisely. If people want open borders, it's up to them to make their feelings known by voting for politicians who will carry out their wishes, just as those who want immigration controlled should make their feelings known by voting for politicians who share their view. Let the majority decide.

If, for example, Rosanna Flynn as RAR was to run for office as a TD in the next general election as an independent candidate with a platform of completely open borders, how good would you say her chances of being elected would be?

I'd love to hear the logistics.

For example, I never hear those who wish for open borders argue for the abandonment of the asylum system, even though it is the existence of those same borders that technically underpins the protections.

HollyB

opo wrote: »

For example, I never hear those who wish for open borders argue for the abandonment of the asylum system, even though it is the existence of those same borders that technically underpins the protections.

Perhaps they intend the asylum system to confer more rights than simply permission to reside in Ireland, for those who would choose to arrive as asylum seekers even if the borders are open to all comers.

Should the borders be opened, maybe the plan is that, while most immigrants will just have the right to come to Ireland and to work here, those who seek asylum will have the right to be accommodated and provided for by the state - though apparently not in direct provision centres, according to the Cork Anti Racist Network (https://www.indymedia.ie/article/90738) - as well as provided with free third level education at the expense of the taxpayers of Ireland.

johnnyc

she & her children should be sent back to nigeria full stop, she lied and would be considered a economic refugee

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Short of denying the government-provided benefits to immigrants, I think you're right that financial collapse will follow for the Western countries who open their borders without any restrictions.

Souljacker

Out of sight and out of mind no?

I don't deny that opening our borders would result in huge drop in living standards in this country, but it really makes you think what an unequal world we live in. It's through an accident of birth we've all a relatively privileged existence.

johnathan woss

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Clearly The Law about murder is an ancient Law held by our Ancestors because of the very clear need for it. Life is Sacred. That's The Law.

Clearly the other law that surrounds the imaginary makey uppy borders is just made up nonsense aimed at keeping the poor down South and stopping all of us from freely wandering our Earth. It cuts against The Law.

What gets to decide this is called Humanity

hahahaha do you think our ancient ancestors could just wander into other tribes territories and live there as they saw fit ?

If a woman and two children had sneaked into another tribe's territory thousands of years ago do you or do you not think they would have been fed and given free accomoadtion, education and healthcare ?

walshb

Why don't we simply adopt Nigeria?:rolleyes:

Reading some posts here, that is the impression
I am getting.

The problem seems to be that
the Irish seem to want to tell other Irish
that those in Nigeria are all having a terrible
poor and hungry war ravaged life and that we
Irish should STOP it and make sure that all the
poor Nigerians have lives like our own!

Pamela is not the problem here and no matter what
I think of her, I will give that woman serious credit for fighting
tooth and nail, legally or not, to remain here. She is pulling
every trick and con in the book and it seems to be working.

Can we blame her for trying this? If it's there to be tried and if we
allow it and fall for it and encourage it, then the best of luck
to Pamela. She isn't going down without a fight, that's
for sure

KINGVictor

walshb wrote: »

Why don't we simply adopt Nigeria?:rolleyes:

Reading some posts here, that is the impression
I am getting.

The problem seems to be that
the Irish seem to want to tell other Irish
that those in Nigeria are all having a terrible
poor and hungry war ravaged life and that we
Irish should STOP it and make sure that all the
poor Nigerians have lives like our own!

Pamela is not the problem here and no matter what
I think of her, I will give that woman serious credit for fighting
tooth and nail, legally or not, to remain here. She is pulling
every trick and con in the book and it seems to be working.

Can we blame her for trying this? If it's there to be tried and if we
allow it and fall for it and encourage it, then the best of luck
to Pamela. She isn't going down without a fight, that's
for sure

I dont know what post you are replying to, so pardon me when I say..there is no chance we could adopt Nigeria...forget the fact there are lots of them here taking advantage of the Irish system but Nigeria the country has far more potentials than Ireland.If not because of our geographical proximity...we have little to offer todays world....The US,China,Canada and most developed countries gain a lot from Nigeria that Ireland cannot match ever....the only reason we get investments is because of ancestry and the fact we speak english...

We virtually have no natural resource to harness.....if the current economic trend continues don't be surprised to hear that some multinationals would one day transfer operations to Lagos.

Souljacker

KINGVictor wrote: »

I dont know what post you are replying to, so pardon me when I say..there is no chance we could adopt Nigeria...forget the fact there are lots of them here taking advantage of the Irish system but Nigeria the country has far more potentials than Ireland.If not because of our geographical proximity...we have little to offer todays world....The US,China,Canada and most developed countries gain a lot from Nigeria that Ireland cannot match ever....the only reason we get investments is because of ancestry and the fact we speak english...

We virtually have no natural resource to harness.....if the current economic trend continues don't be surprised to hear that some multinationals would one day transfer operations to Lagos.

I think you may have missed the 'rollie-eyed' emoticon, it's hard to convey sarcasm over the net.

ParkRunner

walshb wrote: »

Pamela is not the problem here and no matter what
I think of her, I will give that woman serious credit for fighting
tooth and nail, legally or not, to remain here. She is pulling
every trick and con in the book and it seems to be working.

Can we blame her for trying this? If it's there to be tried and if we
allow it and fall for it and encourage it, then the best of luck
to Pamela. She isn't going down without a fight, that's
for sure

I dont think anyone can deny that she is persistent in her endeavours and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she has yet another card up her sleeve to play once her deportation becomes imminent.

Her options now though are severly limited and I couldn't see any court granting her an injunction preventing the Minister from finally enforcing her deportation order.

It would be a sad state of affairs if our asylum system became even more of a game for con artists trying to push their luck and test every nook and cranny, before the State is forced to fork out money deporting them, which could be much better spent elsewhere, rather than being a system which grants protection to those genuinely in need of it.