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 Enitan Izevbekhai
Options
Comments
-
Her two beautiful little girls (saw the eldest at her communion last summer) don't deserve this. And they certainly don't deserve what's waiting for them in Nigeria.
I don't understand this world, or certain people. Humanity. Crock of ****, that.0 -
I was talking to her today, her manner and graciousness alone would improve our community vastly.0
-
No its not harsh she is illegal in this country and she has cost taxpayers millions at a time when we are nearly bankurpt, most irish people are sick of bogus asylum seekers.0
-
trailerparkboy wrote: »No its not harsh she is illegal in this country and she has cost taxpayers millions at a time when we are nearly bankurpt, most irish people are sick of bogus asylum seekers.
Really well chosen handle, suits you0 -
I was talking to her today, her manner and graciousness alone would improve our community vastly.
So we should let her stay because she's nice?Her two beautiful little girls (saw the eldest at her communion last summer) don't deserve this. And they certainly don't deserve what's waiting for them in Nigeria.
I don't understand this world, or certain people. Humanity. Crock of ****, that.
I don't get this, do you know categorically what exactly is waiting for her in Nigeria?? Methinks not. Her government have said that they would be safe, but oh no, that has to be lies doesnt it?. So what, we are taking every word of what she says as gospel, despite the fact that a lot of this may be wholly exaggerated to pull on heart strings so people can get on a bandwagon and say she should stay? She has come over here and painted a picture of poor little me and the big bad meanie government over there. So lets just believe her, because she's 'nice' and we can all live happily ever after instead of looking at the truth.
We have enough problems in this country that we need to be campaigning about, never mind some refugee spouting about the state of their country. Go home and sort out your own problems with your own country, we have enough to do here. For god sake, this debacle has cost the country a huge amount of money. That's public money that is badly needed everywhere else in this country, but no, lets spend it on this, because we like her.
This person (and many others) are here at a cost to the tax payer. Look around, we are in the depths of depression, and the state can hardly even manage to look after its own population never mind any refugees. Laws are there for a reason people. To be enforced!
Rant over.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why has nobody clicked that she is probably being nice etc just to get a bit of sympathy in the hope it will help her be allowed to stay in the country? Get them out i say and help a single irish mother and her 2 kids instead.0
-
So we should let her stay because she's nice?
No, because she is a mother of two little girls who have been reared alongside my own, who play the same games in the yard, who have the same friends, who do the same school nativity play, who are looking forward to Santa, and all the other aspects of a childs life here, and have done for the majority of their lives. If there is any doubt (and there is plenty) that the girls are at risk then simply let them stay and continue their lives here. The fact that Pamela herself is a lovely person, and would undoubtedly be a bonus to Sligo is not a reason to let them stay, but risk to those little girls, who are identical to my own is.0 -
No Offence Sueme, but what has any of that got to do with the laws of this country? She is still an Asylum seeker.
Like I said, laws are there for a reason. Should they just be thrown out the window because she has a few friends here and has her kids in school?
May as well bin the drink driving laws then, since most people don't cause accidents......0 -
I think most asylem seekers have friends, that's not an issue within the law. As hard as it sounds the law doesnt care if somebody is nice or not. You can or can not agree with the law ofcourse but for the law every body should be the same, exept people who can afford a good lawyer are a bit more equal then others. I dont have anything against anybody but do understand you cant help everybody. And coming from a land the size of Munster with 17 million people in it I know what busy is. Saying that I would not want to be the one who makes the dicision who can stay and who not. I see both sides and cant say who's right or wrong. There are a lot of fake sylem seeker who fcuked it up for the real ones. In holland the minister somtimes let people stay because a lot of people are in favour of them (mostly during ellection years) Its nice for he people that can stay but i's really not fair on the other ones, is it?0
-
Dear Minister Ahern
I'm writing to you today, two days before the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a certain amount of misgiving but also with enormous pride, because I know that it is more than likely that you will read this letter. I cherish the fact that I live in a liberal democracy, where our politicians are known to us, where we can call them by their first names without causing offence, where even their nicknames are badges of affection. I love the fact that my children are growing up in this country, a place which is a bigger version of their home - a warm, loving, funny, challenging place. I remember reading a short article by a friend of mine, Chinedu Onyejelem, in which he described how moved he was to see Bertie Ahern, still our Taoiseach at the time, walking up the steps of the church in Cabra, on his way into mass. I remember feeling great pride in my country that such a thing, our country's leader mixing with other people, was possible, and that we had organised ourselves in such a way that we could take this simple act for granted.
I was watching the News on RTE one day last week, and there was an item on Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters, a civic reception for them in Sligo. And I thought how profoundly upsetting it would be to see these three people being deported from our country, and how ashamed I would feel if this happened. I'm no expert on law and won't pretend to be, but I can think of no moral reason why Ms Izevbekhai and her children should not be allowed to stay here. I wasn't looking at precedents or statistics; I was looking at two little girls in their Sunday dresses, kicking their heels against the legs of the chairs they sat on. I saw the innocence and beauty, and the glimpse of the future, that we all love to see in children. I am a very proud citizen of Ireland but I hate to think how I will feel if I have to witness these two children being hauled out of my country and sent to a place where they might be maimed.
I grew up in a house where the Proclamation of Independence was up on the wall, in the hall, and I don't know how many times I read it or parts of it. I remember once when I was a child counting the number of times the word 'children' appeared in the document. I counted four. I remember thinking that this was amazing, that a document that started with the scary, stirring phrase, 'In the name of God and the dead generations' could also include children, that a call to arms could also be a warm embrace. The Proclamations's call to arms can be consigned to history but, perhaps more than ever before, we need the warm embrace. We are moving into frightening, uncertain times, made more frightening, I think, by much of the commentary and political decisions. Our politicians, I'm afraid, have not, to date, been serving us well. I can well understand that they might feel as uncertain and as frightened about the future as many of us are being made to feel. But I can't think of any other time in my life when acts of generosity and reassurance are so vital. The decision to let Pamela Izevbekhai and her children stay would be such an act. I've never met Ms Izevbekhai and her children but they look like a warm, beautiful family and, at this point in our history, we need all the beauty we can get.
Yours sincerely
Roddy Doyle0 -
Advertisement
-
i am sorry, but we can not let sentement or emotion to control our decisions, i know little about mrs Izevbekhai , her plight, her history or her family, only what i have read here, so this is a totally unbiased arguement,
the goverment has a duty to act and make dicisions on a case by case bases, if they were to allow every person in who seeked asylum, it would be unfair to the people of this country and to the the people being admited, as the goverment would not have the fininaces to look after the people living here already who need it and for the people being admited who need it
these in charge of these decisions have difficult ones to make, there are many different aspects to consider and sentiment can not come into it, if mrs Izevbekhai or any other person has a geniuene case then i would hope that our goverment would do their duty for them, but they need to work with the facts, they need to take into account them and the comunties they are moving to
if what is being said about this lady true, then how can you not feel for her, i hope it works out for her, what ever decision our goverment makes, if she is allowed to stay i hope you all embrace her as a derserving human being and all the other derserving applicants our goverment accepts, if not, we have to accept there desisions and their reasons for it, it would be great if they could allow all in who had a valid aguement, but they cant, unfortunatly, these desisions have to be made, it may sound harsh, unfair, unjust, it would be thesame for any one of us seeking asylum0 -
blackiebest wrote: »Dear Minister Ahern
I'm writing to you today, two days before the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a certain amount of misgiving but also with enormous pride, because I know that it is more than likely that you will read this letter. I cherish the fact that I live in a liberal democracy, where our politicians are known to us, where we can call them by their first names without causing offence, where even their nicknames are badges of affection. I love the fact that my children are growing up in this country, a place which is a bigger version of their home - a warm, loving, funny, challenging place. I remember reading a short article by a friend of mine, Chinedu Onyejelem, in which he described how moved he was to see Bertie Ahern, still our Taoiseach at the time, walking up the steps of the church in Cabra, on his way into mass. I remember feeling great pride in my country that such a thing, our country's leader mixing with other people, was possible, and that we had organised ourselves in such a way that we could take this simple act for granted.
I was watching the News on RTE one day last week, and there was an item on Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters, a civic reception for them in Sligo. And I thought how profoundly upsetting it would be to see these three people being deported from our country, and how ashamed I would feel if this happened. I'm no expert on law and won't pretend to be, but I can think of no moral reason why Ms Izevbekhai and her children should not be allowed to stay here. I wasn't looking at precedents or statistics; I was looking at two little girls in their Sunday dresses, kicking their heels against the legs of the chairs they sat on. I saw the innocence and beauty, and the glimpse of the future, that we all love to see in children. I am a very proud citizen of Ireland but I hate to think how I will feel if I have to witness these two children being hauled out of my country and sent to a place where they might be maimed.
I grew up in a house where the Proclamation of Independence was up on the wall, in the hall, and I don't know how many times I read it or parts of it. I remember once when I was a child counting the number of times the word 'children' appeared in the document. I counted four. I remember thinking that this was amazing, that a document that started with the scary, stirring phrase, 'In the name of God and the dead generations' could also include children, that a call to arms could also be a warm embrace. The Proclamations's call to arms can be consigned to history but, perhaps more than ever before, we need the warm embrace. We are moving into frightening, uncertain times, made more frightening, I think, by much of the commentary and political decisions. Our politicians, I'm afraid, have not, to date, been serving us well. I can well understand that they might feel as uncertain and as frightened about the future as many of us are being made to feel. But I can't think of any other time in my life when acts of generosity and reassurance are so vital. The decision to let Pamela Izevbekhai and her children stay would be such an act. I've never met Ms Izevbekhai and her children but they look like a warm, beautiful family and, at this point in our history, we need all the beauty we can get.
Yours sincerely
Roddy Doyle
What has this speech got to do with anything?I can think of no moral reason why Ms Izevbekhai and her children should not be allowed to stay here
I can think of no moral reason either, but that doesn't change the laws. Like Stewie said, its about facts and laws, not about how nice someone is or isn't?
Should we run auditions for people to come into this country instead of having laws?
Should someone be allowed to keep their job because over someone else because they're a nicer person? Same principle. These decisions are made on facts, and not on emotion or feelings. They are done so for a reason0 -
What has this speech got to do with anything?
I can think of no moral reason either, but that doesn't change the laws. Like Stewie said, its about facts and laws, not about how nice someone is or isn't?
Should we run auditions for people to come into this country instead of having laws?
Should someone be allowed to keep their job because over someone else because they're a nicer person? Same principle. These decisions are made on facts, and not on emotion or feelings. They are done so for a reason
These decisions are made on facts, and not on emotion or feelings. NO they are not. They are made by a "secret system" which is "manifestly unfair", not my description but that of the Supreme Court. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal was not only unfair but a gravy train for lawyers who supported FF/PDs.0 -
So is Sligo to be the new destination for every Muslim who says they or there family is under threat of genital mutilation.
Nigeria has lots of Christians living there and if this woman was sent back to a Christian area she would not be under any threat.0 -
So is Sligo to be the new destination for every Muslim who says they or there family is under threat of genital mutilation.
Nigeria has lots of Christians living there and if this woman was sent back to a Christian area she would not be under any threat.
Most likely. I am fast getting the impression that the laws of this country are subjective to the people on the 'let her stay' bandwagon and not objective as they should be.
Essexboy, care to elaborate on this 'Secret System'?0 -
Are you suggesting every girl in Lagos has been genitally mutilated.Her two beautiful little girls (saw the eldest at her communion last summer) don't deserve this. And they certainly don't deserve what's waiting for them in Nigeria.
I don't understand this world, or certain people. Humanity. Crock of ****, that.0 -
Her eldest died from having undergone the proceedure. I think she's more afraid of her family than of the country.0
-
-
Hang on a sec, if she's afraid of her family, she should be turning to the legal system in her own country. Why is ireland getting involved in a family matter that doesn't concern us?0
-
Does it really matter where the children are from? Nigeria, America, England, Roscommon - they are all just children.
It is her husbands family who killed the elder daughter.
Please read the website www.letthemstay.org, and while ye're at it watch the video at the very end of the page. Then think of your daughters, sisters and nieces.0 -
Advertisement
-
Does it really matter where the children are from? Nigeria, America, England, Roscommon - they are all just children.
It is her husbands family who killed the elder daughter.
Please read the website www.letthemstay.org, and while ye're at it watch the video at the very end of the page. Then think of your daughters, sisters and nieces.
Sueme, don't try to lay a guilt trip, its beneath you. If I was in her shoes I would feel the same as her, I agree, but yet again I ask the question, what has that got to do with the laws of this country? Remember, this is only the subjective opinion of one person who has propagated this out to anyone who will listen to her.
That video is nothing more than propaganda to try to guilt trip people, just like the concern ads that are on daytime TV. Who are we to interfere with age old cultural ritual of another country?
I'm baffled at the amount of time and effort people have put into this campaign. For gods sake, look to our own country and the problems we are having here. Why not start campaigns to help the homeless or drug addicts or something?0 -
Sueme, don't try to lay a guilt trip, its beneath you.
Its not guilt I'm looking for, its compassion thats needed.If I was in her shoes I would feel the same as her, I agree, but yet again I ask the question, what has that got to do with the laws of this country?
Its simple. The law is forbidding her to stay here. It, like any law, has exceptions.Remember, this is only the subjective opinion of one person who has propagated this out to anyone who will listen to her.
Fair play to her. I'm sure there are other mothers and children here, and in other countries, who don't have the same voice. Mores the shame.That video is nothing more than propaganda to try to guilt trip people, just like the concern ads that are on daytime TV.
No, its a graphic video of a screaming child having her clitoris cut off with a blade, in a filthy hut, with no medical assistance.Who are we to interfere with age old cultural ritual of another country?
"We" are people living in the 21st century, who realise this is barbaric.I'm baffled at the amount of time and effort people have put into this campaign.
Don't be baffled, just accept that others find the danger these children are in horrific.For gods sake, look to our own country and the problems we are having here. Why not start campaigns to help the homeless or drug addicts or something?
So because we have our own problems we should ignore others? Some people are not comfortable with that.0 -
So because we have our own problems we should ignore others? Some people are not comfortable with that.
No, my point is that we should look after our own first, and thereafter other people. I don't hear anyone talking about the conditions that people on the street have to put up with and how something has to be done about themIts simple. The law is forbidding her to stay here. It, like any law, has exceptions.
Would you be so sympathetic if a drink driver had ran over a child in a car, but they were remourseful and they didn't mean it? Should there be an exception to this law?
If a child abuser was doing unspeakable things because he was mentally unwell and couldn't help it, should an exception be made to this law?
If a drug addict muggs and old lady to feed their habit should an exception be made to this law?
So is it that exceptions should be made to any law, or just the ones where it makes you feel better?0 -
No, my point is that we should look after our own first, and thereafter other people.
Right then, if two children, an Irish and a Nigerian child are about to be mutilated, we save the Irish child first, then the Nigerian? Thats cool. As long as both children are cared for the same.I don't hear anyone talking about the conditions that people on the street have to put up with and how something has to be done about them
The majority of homeless people are addicts, they became addicts themselves. They are, in a sad way, responsible somewhat for their situation.Would you be so sympathetic if a drink driver had ran over a child in a car, but they were remourseful and they didn't mean it? Should there be an exception to this law?
If a child abuser was doing unspeakable things because he was mentally unwell and couldn't help it, should an exception be made to this law?
If a drug addict muggs and old lady to feed their habit should an exception be made to this law?
So is it that exceptions should be made to any law, or just the ones where it makes you feel better?
No law is being broken here. Pamela is fighting her case. By exceptions to the law, I mean solutions, other avenues.
I have no idea about politics or the law (:o), I am looking at this on a human level. I agree we need to police our borders, there are many seeking asylum here that I hope don't get it. We, as you say, have our own problems with regards to mental health and addictions, the resources are not given by the government to treat these problems (and as a result homelessness). But in this case, and surely others, we need to be compassionate. I have no idea whether Pamelas story is 100% true, but I would rather she was here with her children and I was wrong for believing her, than to turn them away and risk the lives of the children.0 -
The majority of homeless people are addicts, they became addicts themselves. They are, in a sad way, responsible somewhat for their situation.
A lot of these people are victims of the socitey that they grew up in, so they couldn't be held responsible for that. If anything, Pamela would also be a vicitm of her society so in that sense the same exceptions should applyI have no idea whether Pamelas story is 100% true, but I would rather she was here with her children and I was wrong for believing her, than to turn them away and risk the lives of the children.
Fair enough, but I would make the point that if she were to win this case, then it would only be a matter of time before every other asylum seeker would take the same route as her because of this. If we were to adopt the attitude of rather being wrong than extradite them where would we be then? We would be overrun.0 -
A lot of these people are victims of the socitey that they grew up in, so they couldn't be held responsible for that.
I don't totally agree with that, but its a whole different thread.Fair enough, but I would make the point that if she were to win this case, then it would only be a matter of time before every other asylum seeker would take the same route as her because of this. If we were to adopt the attitude of rather being wrong than extradite them where would we be then? We would be overrun.
This is a common and understandable fear. There is no evidence to suggest it would cause a flood of asylum seekers claiming the same issues. Ireland isn't as attractive economically as it once was, so those claiming asylum but who are actually economic migrants are going to lessen anyway. Those who do claim asylum need to be investigated thoroughly and judged on that alone. Not on what some of their countrymen have done in the past here or in other countries.
The point I'm making is we have to, morally, err on the side of caution in this case.0 -
But in this case, and surely others, we need to be compassionate. I have no idea whether Pamelas story is 100% true, but I would rather she was here with her children and I was wrong for believing her, than to turn them away and risk the lives of the children.
Which cases would you single out for special treatment?
Do you think that every asylum seeker, no matter where they are from, how and when they came to Ireland or how far-fetched their story is, should automatically be granted leave to remain, just in case they might be in danger? Or is that a concession you feel should be made only to those with children? Or just to those using the media to appeal to the court of public opinion?
It's natural and admirable to feel sympathy, especially in cases that are in the public eye, but the asylum system is not and should not be a popularity contest. Applicants should be evaluated based on the same criteria. Those who qualify for asylum are allowed to stay, those who do not are deported.0 -
Which cases would you single out for special treatment?
Those with children.Do you think that every asylum seeker, no matter where they are from, how and when they came to Ireland or how far-fetched their story is, should automatically be granted leave to remain, just in case they might be in danger?
No.Or is that a concession you feel should be made only to those with children?
There needs to be more care (whats the appropriate word..?) when children are involved.Or just to those using the media to appeal to the court of public opinion?
If they have the means to get the media involved, then off they pop, and why shouldn't/wouldn't they?It's natural and admirable to feel sympathy, especially in cases that are in the public eye, but the asylum system is not and should not be a popularity contest.
I couldn't care less about popularity, the fact that Pamela is a lady, and her two children are lovely is just a bonus to us, should they be allowed to remain here. If they were raving lunatics, we still have a duty to offer them safety.Applicants should be evaluated based on the same criteria. Those who qualify for asylum are allowed to stay, those who do not are deported.
Should an able-bodied male 30 year old be evaluated on the same criteria as a female (in this instance) child in your opinion?0 -
Those with children.
So, to clarify, in any case where an asylum seeker is a child or is accompanied by a child, do you think that they should automatically be granted leave to remain, just in case?There needs to be more care (whats the appropriate word..?) when children are involved.
I would hope that all cases are carefully examined while they are being assessed, not just those involving children. If the applicant is found to qualify for asylum, then they stay. If not, they are deported, regardless of their age. I certainly wouldn't agree with refugee status or leave to remain being granted automatically in any cases involving children.If they have the means to get the media involved, then off they pop, and why shouldn't/wouldn't they?
They can do it if they so choose. However, I certainly don't think that it should be allowed to make a difference to their case, one way or another. If they fail to secure refugee status, then the court of public opinion should not be allowed to overturn the verdict.I couldn't care less about popularity, the fact that Pamela is a lady, and her two children are lovely is just a bonus to us, should they be allowed to remain here. If they were raving lunatics, we still have a duty to offer them safety.
If they qualify for asylum or subsidiary protection.Should an able-bodied male 30 year old be evaluated on the same criteria as a female (in this instance) child in your opinion?
Of course. The same grounds should apply to everybody in terms of applying for asylum. The age and sex of the applicant may mean that they are exposed to certain dangers that would not be an issue for the other sex and/or other age groups, which should factor into the criteria but the decision-making process should apply fairly in all cases. In cases involving an unaccompanied child, there may be certain difficulties that would require special attention, particularly if they are very young, and I would hope that social workers and guardians would be able to work on their behalf.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, to clarify, in any case where an asylum seeker is a child or is accompanied by a child, do you think that they should automatically be granted leave to remain, just in case?
As is quite clear from my post, no.I would hope that all cases are carefully examined while they are being assessed, not just those involving children.
As would I.If the applicant is found to qualify for asylum, then they stay. If not, they are deported, regardless of their age.
We have a stronger moral duty towards children than to healthy capable adults. There should be more leeway involved.I certainly wouldn't agree with refugee status or leave to remain being granted automatically in any cases involving children.
Me either.They can do it if they so choose. However, I certainly don't think that it should be allowed to make a difference to their case, one way or another. If they fail to secure refugee status, then the court of public opinion should not be allowed to overturn the verdict.
I agree.If they qualify for asylum or subsidiary protection.
Of course. The same grounds should apply to everybody in terms of applying for asylum. The age and sex of the applicant may mean that they are exposed to certain dangers that would not be an issue for the other sex and/or other age groups, which should factor into the criteria but the decision-making process should apply fairly in all cases. In cases involving an unaccompanied child, there may be certain difficulties that would require special attention, particularly if they are very young, and I would hope that social workers and guardians would be able to work on their behalf.
I agree.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement