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
-
donegalfella wrote: »Hornat from Somalia?
Would this be the Zainab Fornah case you're trying to refer to again, T runner? The case of the 18-year-old adult woman from a tribe in Sierra Leone? This is not a precedent in this case, as has been pointed out to you many times—because an adult woman is not able to avail herself of the same parental protections as a child.
It is a precedent because the reason for persecution was FGM and since then there has been one case for asylum by FGM in 3 years. Hardly floodgate stuff is it?
People have been toting this floodgate argument with no basis whatsoever.
Parental control doesnt come into it. You need Police protection to stop an sylum application and it doesnt exist in Nigeria. You have seen and accepted the evidence for this.Mrs Izevbekhai has claimed in the Irish Times that she was a banking executive back in Nigeria. She says she and her husband had a nice house, three cars, two maids, and their daughters in a private crèche. According to her account, she was very wealthy by Nigerian standards.
But you have claimed before that she is an economic migrant?In order to seek asylum in Ireland, a Nigerian has to fly a very long way at great expense. The average wage in Nigeria is about $50 USD a month. So Ireland only sees the wealthy Nigerians, the ones who are arguably least in need of state protection. Those in genuine need flee to neighbouring African countries.
Not true. There are refugees from Delta provence near Cameroon who flee Police persecution over the border (the same police who will allegedly protect those children). That is the Oil state, and the police do the bidding of Official Nigeria and their partners (Shell, Esso etc)
There is no state protection against FGM in Nigeria for anyone. There has never being anyone prosecuted under Nigerian Law.
It is lucky for the girls their mother could afford their flight. That doesnt mean they deserve torture back in Nigeria.0 -
I'm sorry, we don't all live in your bubble....we live in the real world. Pamela will be deported.....her "case" stinks to high heavens. She has fabricated large elements of her case.....that is why the courts consistently rejected her appeals. I don't have anything personal against her, I just want to see the rule of law imposed.
That is all rubbish in particular the words in bold. The courts reject her appeals because they say that there are state protections in Nigeria even though these protections dont actually exist on the ground.darealtulip wrote: »There is a christian part in Nigiria too, haven't seen 1 argument why she cant move there.
again I'm not against her staying or leaving, i'm just interested in this discussion because I see both sides.
There is FGM in the Christian part also.Nigeria is located in Western Africa, and borders the Gulf of Guinea, between Benin on the west and Cameroon on the east. It has a compact area of 923,768 square kilometers (356,376 square miles). The country's land mass extends from the Gulf of Guinea in the south to the Sahel (the shore of the Sahara Desert) in the north. Comparatively, Nigeria is slightly more than twice the size of California, or the size of California, Nevada, and Arizona combined.
Ireland - the total area, including inland water. Ireland’s shores enclose about 33 thousand square miles (or 85 thousand km²).
NIGERIA IS 10 TIMES THE SIZE! Surely she can evade her in-laws somewhere in this vast country?
She has tried that already. If the extended family are rich (and they are) they will find her.0 -
And they wont find her here then? I know as a fact that FGM is practiced in Holland, so probaly in other parts of europe aswell. So how do we know she is safe here if she is not safe in the whole of Africa?
I think it is barbaric and I really am against FGM. But really how safe is she anywhere then?
And if the family are really hunting her through the whole of Africa, why does she go public with a large change the family find out she is in Ireland? I would stay well hidden if I was her. Specially with a large nigiran community in the UK.0 -
May I draw a parallel here re the tactics such people use?
A young woman in Australia converted to Christiniaty, Her family are Muslim.
She managed with a great deal of halp and support to get to the US as she felt called to enter a Convent, and elsewhere was of course too near a very angry family for her safety.
She got a message from them; they had kidnapped her cousin, and unless she returned and married the old man chosen for her, they would kill her cousin - a girl of course.
She knew they were not bluffing and had to return.
We here cannot imagine the lengths these folk will go to when a mere woman defies them.
Those children are doomed if they are sent away.0 -
May I draw a parallel here re the tactics such people use?
A young woman in Australia converted to Christiniaty, Her family are Muslim.
She managed with a great deal of halp and support to get to the US as she felt called to enter a Convent, and elsewhere was of course too near a very angry family for her safety.
She got a message from them; they had kidnapped her cousin, and unless she returned and married the old man chosen for her, they would kill her cousin - a girl of course.
She knew they were not bluffing and had to return.
We here cannot imagine the lengths these folk will go to when a mere woman defies them.
Those children are doomed if they are sent away.
again I'm not against her leaving or staying, but you just say she is not safe here, so what is her ground to stay then? That was excactly my point. If they go to these lenghts I would stay well away from the press!0 -
Advertisement
-
No I didn't... Re read please.
And there is safety in publicity; think about it?darealtulip wrote: »again I'm not against her leaving or staying, but you just say she is not safe here, so what is her ground to stay then? That was excactly my point. If they go to these lenghts I would stay well away from the press!0 -
darealtulip wrote: »again I'm not against her leaving or staying, but you just say she is not safe here, so what is her ground to stay then? That was excactly my point. If they go to these lenghts I would stay well away from the press!
A point well made! She is waving a big red flag as to the whereabouts of her and her children and if Pamela and her children managed to enter the State illegally, I can see no reason why her in-laws can't come here find her and perform FGM on the children. If the in-laws are so determined to get the children and they are willing to travel the length and breadth of Nigeria searching every village and up she pops in the national news in Ireland she must have absolute confidence in the protections available in Ireland.0 -
If the inlaws come here id like to think that people here would demonstrate for once some solidarity in this thread and offer herself and her children refuge.
It strikes me as though there is nothing that this poor woman can do.
She is vilified for coming illegallly into this country even though thats the only way you can do it (as far as I am aware?) before you put forward your asylum application. As far as I can see she has been very law abiding in the steps she has used to seek asylum.
She is demonised for in some way looking like she has money, and in the same breath for being an ecomomic migrant.
She is vilified for using the press when everyone knows that to overturn bad policy historically the media has been instrumental in exposing injustice eg Birmingham six, Guildford 4, the Watergate scandal, exposing the Iraq invasion as been based on false a premise, and now with the Tara and Shell to Sea campaigns.
A recurring theme throughout the thread is the belief, that the law is the law and has to be enforced impartially and be universally accepted with no personal exceptions been made. By this logic black people would still have to give up their bus seats to whites in the united states, homosexuality would still be a crime, women wouldnt have the vote etc. There are certain instances thankfully in which test cases need to be made and laws amended.
There is constant scaremongering that if we continue to give people like Pamela asylum that this will have negative effects on our country using alarmist vocabulary like "opening floodgates" and "meal tickets". If we are seen to liberalise our laws by opposing fgm then we are "setting dangerous precedents". For those who allege that they are arguing against the practice as inhumane they cannot in good conscience say that it is not irelands responsibility to help those who fear persecution from fgm. Some have suggested that Pamela should have gone somewhere else to escape fgm ( other parts of africa etc),yet why should we absolve ourselves of all responsibility to help those in trouble.
It appears to be next to impossible for her to prove her legitimacy or justify her right to stay to some commentators. What in their mind would constitute a valid risk of threat of fgm if a previous childs death is not a significant enough reason?. What is the point of having an asylum process at all if like some on this thread have stated it is not irelands responsibilty to help, should we elimanate our asylum process all together and strictly enforce a closed doors policy?This might be popular with posters who have incitfully called fo her to be "sent home" or send them back".
If this case has done nothing else it has opened up a debate on where we stand on the whole issue of human and civil rights inside and outside our country. Irish people throughout history have had to endure persecution, racism, and experience devastating events like the famine and years of mass emigration to different parts of the world. I believe that a large part of what defines us as been Irish should be our ability to empathise and offer comfort, support and solidarity to those who are in need. This is something we are able to do because the majority of us either experienced emigration ourselves or probably know a friend or family member who had to live and work (possibily illegally) in another country and potentially suffer discrimination.
Surely these are issues that should influence us and our government in decision making and not blindly adopting protectionist,insularist,defensive and ultimately self-serving policies. This is especially important in the current climate when perhaps some posters on this very forum may be forced to become economic migrants and leave the country in search of work and a hospitable welcome.0 -
Ireland does welcome with open arms those who are in genuine need of refuge. Program refugees are brought here by the Irish government from devastated countries and integrated into society and given all the resources and assistance they require to help them devlop as human beings and live as normal a life as possible.
Pamela has been given every opportunity to make her case and failed. I would have more respect for the Irish government if they put pressure on the Nigerian authorities to enforce the laws which exists in Nigeria outlawing the practice of FGM and helping millions of people there rather than letting one lady and her two children stay because of public pressure and returning many others who have the same fears but haven't the same media driven campaign to fight their case.0 -
We only point out that there might be a possiblity that she makes things up. I personally dont know and can't know. But you cant just believe everybody all the time. It's human nature to lie and abuse trust.
We also just pointed out the flaws in a few arguments people put foward. Nobody said she should have done this or that, we asked questions.
BTW the most of these points forwarded where by people who really dont have an opinion.
I dont care if she is here for economic or other reasons and fair play to her to use the means given to you.
And I thought seeking asylum is a legal thing to do, so she didnt enter illegally as was pointed out before.
I think it is very naive to think that she would be safe and protected here if their family is really that determined to get her kids. You cant simply protect her from kidnap as would happen in Africa accoording to people on this thread. And I know as a fact that FGM is happening in europe, I pesonaly wouldnt put a red marker (by making myself front page news) above my head for the people I'm hiding for. But in the end she is totaly free to do so IMO.
Last but not least, I agree that you need people to push bounderies otherwise laws would never change.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is a great article in the Times regarding this case:
The curious case of Pamela Izevbekhai
It just goes to show there are many people who don't believe her claims.0 -
You credit that? Really!There is a great article in the Times regarding this case:
The curious case of Pamela Izevbekhai
It just goes to show there are many people who don't believe her claims.0 -
You credit that? Really!
You discredit it? Seems to hold all of the information that has been said in the politics forum about this issue.
If you don't credit it, care to elaborate why? Is it on the grounds of facts, something which I have asked you for before, or is it just because is doesn't fit in with your line of thinking?0 -
-
I'm very surprised that the ambasador from Nigeria guarantees her safety in Nigeria. Never heard any ambasador guarantee something like that.
I also read that her husband has close bussiness ties with the UK. I think by ptting her in the press so close to Britain she puts herself in danger, in fact in as much danger as in Nigeria (specially the erea with 0.4% FGM).
I also found it strange that the Dutch authorities never discovered she was travelling on a false passport. The Dutch have a very advanced detection system in place and every passport is checked. And that is every and each one!
The other strange one I found that when you have a visa for Britain you still pay thousends to a smuggler to get you to Ireland next door from Ireland.
Now as I said before I cant know if she is telling the thruth. And I believe she was (finacially) beter off in Nigeria. She must have a very good reason to move to Ireland. Her way of doing it though is at least a bit strange and I think she put herself in a bad position by fleeing to Ireland next to the UK where she had a visa for. I believe she is an intellegent woman and could have foreseen this. By doing this she put her changes right down for the courts to believe her. Specially because it's up to her to prove her claim.
If it is a bogus claim (and I'm not saying it is) it will harm a lot of good will and it will damage a lot for people who are in real need of help. That would better propoganda for extreem right then anything else I can think of. It would harm the creditbilty of all the politiians and people who support her aswell. In Holland we have now the most difficult asylum procedures in place because of the harm bogus claims did. All the goodwill went out of the window because of cases in the media that turned out to be bogus.0 -
The Nigerian Ambassador is a joker. The Nigerian State cannot protect her from forced FGM. Either himself or that biased London Times writer failed to mention that NO prosecutions against FGM have EVER occured in Nigeria.
When a female is under attack the police will only respond after a wife has been murdered or a child has been raped.
Another fact that this writer and the ambassador failed to mention is that Nigeria has already agreed in 2001 to protect any Returnees from Ireland. The deal is Ireland contributes money for the repatriation of these deportees and Nigeria helps them resettle. In reality this money only makes it to corrupt Nigerian Officials pockets. There is evidence that a lot of deportees get the tar beaten out of them for "disgracing the country". So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .
The Irish government knows this, so does the author of that one sided article and yet he chose not to write it. This speaks for that gentleman's agenda.
The Irish Courts FULLY ACCEPT Pamela's account of events. The reporter alluded to this as merely a claim by her supporters when it is actually a fact . I think we need to bring back some integrity into our reporting. As usual all the guff from the send her home side is completely without substantiation and their distortions and omissions used to twist the simple reality around a woman trying to keep her kids out of harms way.0 -
The Nigerian Ambassador is a joker. The Nigerian State cannot protect her from forced FGM. Either himself or that biased London Times writer failed to mention that NO prosecutions against FGM have EVER occured in Nigeria.
When a female is under attack the police will only respond after a wife has been murdered or a child has been raped.
Another fact that this writer and the ambassador failed to mention is that Nigeria has already agreed in 2001 to protect any Returnees from Ireland. The deal is Ireland contributes money for the repatriation of these deportees and Nigeria helps them resettle. In reality this money only makes it to corrupt Nigerian Officials pockets. There is evidence that a lot of deportees get the tar beaten out of them for "disgracing the country". So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .
The Irish government knows this, so does the author of that one sided article and yet he chose not to write it. This speaks for that gentleman's agenda.
The Irish Courts FULLY ACCEPT Pamela's account of events. The reporter alluded to this as merely a claim by her supporters when it is actually a fact . I think we need to bring back some integrity into our reporting. As usual all the guff from the send her home side is completely without substantiation and their distortions and omissions used to twist the simple reality around a woman trying to keep her kids out of harms way.
So then, the Send her home side is completely without substantiation is it? What say you to the same claim turned to the let her stay brigade?
Some questions:
You have some reputable information to this effect?The Nigerian Ambassador is a joker.
Really, or is it because that's only from what you have found?Either himself or that biased London Times writer failed to mention that NO prosecutions against FGM have EVER occured in Nigeria.
You have some evidence to this effect? and even if this is the case, how is this our problem? Its not out job to erradicate corruption in Nigeria now is it?In reality this money only makes it to corrupt Nigerian Officials pockets.So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .
T runner, you are fond of rubbishing information that other people post because they do not back it up with reputable sources, so I will do the same. Back these allegations up, because otherwise they are just conjecture.
And anyway, once they are deported and back in Nigeria, why is it still our responsibility thereafter?0 -
So then, the Send her home side is completely without substantiation is it? What say you to the same claim turned to the let her stay brigade?
That is from Country of origin information admissable in Court. Ive sourced it on the politics forum. Nor going to bother here.Really, or is it because that's only from what you have found?You have some evidence to this effect? and even if this is the case, how is this our problem? Its not out job to erradicate corruption in Nigeria now is it?
Incorrect. The Irish side of the agreement with Nigeria states that the Irish motive is to ensure no human rights abuses after they are returned so it is our job. If there was human rights abuses after they were returned then returning them would have been in breach of their Human Rights under the Geneva convention.T runner, you are fond of rubbishing information that other people post because they do not back it up with reputable sources, so I will do the same. Back these allegations up, because otherwise they are just conjecture.
You'll find this on the Department of Justice website. Again check politics.And anyway, once they are deported and back in Nigeria, why is it still our responsibility thereafter?
Being one of the most corrupt Systems and having one of the most violent police forces (There is pages and pages of evidence for this) it might be easy and fair for asylum seekers to claim that their human rights would be abused if they were deported. It is illegal to deport anyone under Irish Law if their Human Rights are likely to be abused.
This agreement seems to solve Ireland's difficulties in deporting these people while not solving the actual human rights issues. The money never makes it to the returnees--Im assuming it is lost somewhere along the way or funnelled elsewhere.0 -
The Nigerian Ambassador is a joker. The Nigerian State cannot protect her from forced FGM. Either himself or that biased London Times writer failed to mention that NO prosecutions against FGM have EVER occured in Nigeria.
When a female is under attack the police will only respond after a wife has been murdered or a child has been raped.
Another fact that this writer and the ambassador failed to mention is that Nigeria has already agreed in 2001 to protect any Returnees from Ireland. The deal is Ireland contributes money for the repatriation of these deportees and Nigeria helps them resettle. In reality this money only makes it to corrupt Nigerian Officials pockets. There is evidence that a lot of deportees get the tar beaten out of them for "disgracing the country". So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .
The Irish government knows this, so does the author of that one sided article and yet he chose not to write it. This speaks for that gentleman's agenda.
The Irish Courts FULLY ACCEPT Pamela's account of events. The reporter alluded to this as merely a claim by her supporters when it is actually a fact . I think we need to bring back some integrity into our reporting. As usual all the guff from the send her home side is completely without substantiation and their distortions and omissions used to twist the simple reality around a woman trying to keep her kids out of harms way.
The irish goverment cant guaratee her safty here either with the lenghts her family goes through.
The last comment about 'the send her home side' is hopfully not to me personaly because I have made it more then clear that I have no opinion in whether she should stay or not. I just point out some of the things I find strange.
I go with information given and I find a few people here not very critical, and I think you should always be.
I think calling people 'the send her home side' doesnt really help your point at all here, because a lot of the people that challange the then so called 'keep her here side' dont mind her staying or not.
The only problem with your posts I have is,that you say a lot see here or there, why can you not just tell us what the source is because the politics forums is not really a source is it? (I asume that there are people with lots of opinions are on that?)
Why should I have to look up other forums etc to get your point? a simple link would do. thanks0 -
There is evidence that a lot of deportees get the tar beaten out of them for "disgracing the country". So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .
QUOTE]
And there is evidence to the contrary:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,COI,UKHO,,NGA,,493e3bb12,0.html
35. TREATMENT OF RETURNED FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS
35.01 Regarding how returned failed asylum seekers are treated by the Nigerian
authorities, the British-Danish 2005 FFM report stated that:
“The delegation was able to hear first hand from two returned failed asylum
seekers who were separately attending the BHC in connection with visa
applications to return to the UK. The first applicant had been returned to
Nigeria with a certificate of identity issued by the UK authorities. The applicant said that he was questioned by the immigration authorities on return and held for about two or three hours while his identity was confirmed; he was not questioned by the SSS or anyone else. As soon as the applicant’s identity was confirmed the person in question was admitted to Nigeria. The applicant said that he had not encountered any problems or difficulties subsequently and has been issued a replacement passport through normal channels.
The second applicant had been returned to Nigeria on an emergency travel
document issued by the Nigerian High Commission in London. The applicant
said that he had passed through immigration control at Murtala Mohammed
International Airport in Lagos without being questioned and had not
experienced any problems from any government body since returning to
Nigeria. The applicant had also been issued a full replacement passport in the
usual way.” [15] (p66)
35.02 The more recent British-Danish 2008 FFM report stated:
“The FFM delegation interviewed Jason Ivory, Head of the Visa Section at the
British High Commission in Abuja, about the treatment of returned failed
asylum seekers by the Nigerian authorities. He stated that it is not illegal for
Nigerians to travel abroad and apply for asylum. Therefore, the Nigerian
Immigration Service and the police would have no legal basis to detain and
arrest a returned failed asylum seeker. Officials at the British High
Commission in Abuja have regular contact with Nigerian NGOs and none of
these NGOs have reported to them that returned failed asylum seekers have
suffered human rights abuses. He was also not aware of any reports in the
Nigerian media to indicate that returned failed asylum seekers have been illtreated or suffered from any form of persecution from the Nigerian authorities.
The Head of the Visa Section explained that Nigerian failed asylum seekers
return back to Nigeria with temporary travel documents. These documents are
checked by immigration officials and the person concerned is then interviewed. The purpose of the interview is to verify the person’s identity and nationality and to ascertain why the person arrived back in Nigeria with a
temporary travel document. This is simply a formality and part of the standard
procedures carried out by immigration officials.
Once the immigration officials have verified the person’s identity and nationality, he is then let through the immigration control section of the airport and is free to continue his journey
Any thoughts on this?0 -
Advertisement
-
So then, the Send her home side is completely without substantiation is it? What say you to the same claim turned to the let her stay brigade?
That is from Country of origin information admissable in Court. Ive sourced it on the politics forum. Nor going to bother here.
Incorrect. The Irish side of the agreement with Nigeria states that the Irish motive is to ensure no human rights abuses after they are returned so it is our job. If there was human rights abuses after they were returned then returning them would have been in breach of their Human Rights under the Geneva convention.
You'll find this on the Department of Justice website. Again check politics.
Being one of the most corrupt Systems and having one of the most violent police forces (There is pages and pages of evidence for this) it might be easy and fair for asylum seekers to claim that their human rights would be abused if they were deported. It is illegal to deport anyone under Irish Law if their Human Rights are likely to be abused.
This agreement seems to solve Ireland's difficulties in deporting these people while not solving the actual human rights issues. The money never makes it to the returnees--Im assuming it is lost somewhere along the way or funnelled elsewhere.
You may have made refrences to these issues on another post in the politics forum, but if you want to bring your arguement here to make your point you should back up your references too. The thread on the politics forum is 100 pages long, and its tough going. I don't think anyone is going to read it fully. T runner, you are a worthy adversary for anyone on this topic as you seem to have done a lot of research, but trying to make a point and saying bog off somewhere else to see if i'm right only takes away credibility from your arguement.
Seriously, If i made a point and told you you'd have to go off somewhere else to find documentation relating to it I don't think you'd buy that, so why should anyone else?The money never makes it to the returnees--Im assuming it is lost somewhere along the way or funnelled elsewhere.
Again, please reference this to something legitimate or else its a pointless statement.
I'd be interested to hear your comments on what EF has said0 -
There is no doubt, in my mind, that Pamela's story can be held up in two very different lights or seen from two very different perspectives. On a personal level I find it sad that it can be seen in such a black and white manner, no pun intended. At the end of the day she either will or will not be allowed to remain in Sligo. I think that she has, at this point, earned the right to remain here. I know the previous statement will be like a red rag to a bull to many here but if you look at the extent of her efforts, both in evading deportation and assimilating into Sligo life you have to give credit to her determination not to be returned to Nigeria. I think, sadly, that she probably picked the wrong country given the opinions expressed by many here.
Will anyone here be honestly happy if two little girls are taken from their Sligo school and sent to what now must be the ultimate hell on earth journey, in their minds, back to Nigeria. Even if it is 'her fault' is it still ok that those girls will be put through that ordeal having spent all this time in Sligo. This woman, for right or for wrong, has gone through enough in trying to provide a secure and happy upbringing for her childeren and anyone who has time in her company can see that. There may indeed be 'holes in her story' but who is perfect? She is no threat to our culture and it is a bullsh1t arguement that we will be inundated with Nigerians. No we wont.
Sure there are many things wrong with our systems and sure there are many abuses of the same but are we really over-run with 'non-nationals' and are they really causing a problem here. At this stage it will be wrong for us, as a people, to endorse removing those kids and that proud woman and force them to return to Nigeria. Let her be, let her kids be Irish and let this one go because this is the right thing to do!0 -
I'm a non national myself. And I dont believe that there will be thousends of nigireans comming over when she stays, and I come from a city with 50% nonnationals. The floodgates won't open because of the court system, Holland was the number one country for people to go to for asylum till we change to far more tougher regulation. Suddenly we dropped to bottom of the list, it shows that people make a well thought through choice where to go. I do believe that some sort of rules should be in place. I also believe it should be european rules, not every country for it self.
Now her case is all about feelings people have towards her story, for or against (or like me in the middle). Now correct me if I'm wrong but she is her such a long time because the court system allows that time, does this give somebody automaticly the right to stay? Then you can get rid of the court system all together and make it a popularty system. (who we like can stay who dont not) I would find that a shocking system.
I agree she is here for a long time and we (europe) should make the procedures a lot quicker. You can imo not earn the right to stay here by just go to court long enough.
But never forget that she had a choice where to go and how to do it. She put her kids in this as much as the people who want to do the FGM.0 -
blackiebest wrote: »There is no doubt, in my mind, that Pamela's story can be held up in two very different lights or seen from two very different perspectives. On a personal level I find it sad that it can be seen in such a black and white manner, no pun intended. At the end of the day she either will or will not be allowed to remain in Sligo. I think that she has, at this point, earned the right to remain here. I know the previous statement will be like a red rag to a bull to many here but if you look at the extent of her efforts, both in evading deportation and assimilating into Sligo life you have to give credit to her determination not to be returned to Nigeria. I think, sadly, that she probably picked the wrong country given the opinions expressed by many here.
Will anyone here be honestly happy if two little girls are taken from their Sligo school and sent to what now must be the ultimate hell on earth journey, in their minds, back to Nigeria. Even if it is 'her fault' is it still ok that those girls will be put through that ordeal having spent all this time in Sligo. This woman, for right or for wrong, has gone through enough in trying to provide a secure and happy upbringing for her childeren and anyone who has time in her company can see that. There may indeed be 'holes in her story' but who is perfect? She is no threat to our culture and it is a bullsh1t arguement that we will be inundated with Nigerians. No we wont.
Sure there are many things wrong with our systems and sure there are many abuses of the same but are we really over-run with 'non-nationals' and are they really causing a problem here. At this stage it will be wrong for us, as a people, to endorse removing those kids and that proud woman and force them to return to Nigeria. Let her be, let her kids be Irish and let this one go because this is the right thing to do!
Why is it the right thing to do, because she's here so long and her children have integrated into society? Please. that's a lame excuse. I see we are back to the emotive arguments again, saying she should stay because she's nice.
Why has she earned the right to stay here? Because she's made a mockery of our judicial system for over four years? I don't doubt her efforts in attempting to stay here, that's for sure and she has certainly done her best to whip up as much support as she can to stay, but what's that got to do with the price of fish?
I for one will be happy if she is deported with her children. And not because I'm sadistic and enjoy knowing the fact that her children will face FGM or anything like that, its because I don't believe her story. I completely disbelieve the nonsensical story that her kids will ultimately face FGM if they are returned to Nigeria. Her story is full of holes and thats why. I'll be happy because the laws in this country finally ring true.
Why would it be wrong to deport her? Because she's a lovely 'proud' person and has been here for so long? Hardly a credible argument.
Is this your argument for letting her stay?Even if it is 'her fault' is it still ok that those girls will be put through that ordeal having spent all this time in Sligo.
Let go on this one, because it's the right thing to do you say? And what happens next time someone comes over with the same type of story? Should we let them stay too. and so on and so on. Don't tell me that this wouldn't happen, because in a case that is as widely publicized as this one, every asylum seeker will know about it and there will be the 'floodgate' scenario.
It happened with the whole giving birth in Ireland and getting citizenship by default, it will happen here. A precedent will be set that a loophole has been found and it will be exploited. Thinking that it won't happen is naive.0 -
Well Mac, I guess that this is where we see the world differently. Essentially I think that sending her back is wrong. I would like to think that she will be allowed to stay here because of a combination of reasons/circumstances which indeed may not comply with our regulations.
As one who lived and worked illegally in the US in the eighties and spent over two years working for GOAL in various African countries I may be a bit more sympathetic towards cases like Pamela's and no doubt having met her many times socially I am unable to view the case in legal or impartial terms. Teamed with that my lack of knowledge of our asylum laws leaves me in a weak postion to argue her case on legal terms, which I do not believe I have ever attempted.
So yes, my opinion is formed based on my experiences in life and having met the Lady. Being a father of a similiar aged girl I can not but feel it wrong to put her childeren through what will be the most horrific experience they could be put through. As a citizen of this country I am entitled to my opinion and resent being rubbished for holding it. I firmly believe had you had my life experiences you would hold less stringent opinions.
I feel it is very wrong of you to assert that it is 'nonsensical that those childeren could face FGM'. They could and you know it, I know it and nobody has argued that it could not happen. It may not but it could and in their heads it will. I can see, from your point of view, that Pamela created this horror for her kids, but she did so after her child, Elizabeth, died from blood loss. I understand this, do you not?
But for the gift of geography and history it could be your family in this situation. So while you may see me as emotive and suckered by a soft story and I see you as judgmental and uncaring, traits which I fear are on the increase in our society. A mother and her daughters live day to day in our midst, trying to continue with the life they have now and hoping this Nation shows compassion for them.
The flip side to this is that I suspect that the real publicity in this case will only emerge once deportation is attempted. It would be interesting to see how many people will then come out in defence of her staying, i suspect a lot more that you think. From memory the Sindo reported last Sunday that 70% of people (in some survey) are in favour of her being allowed to remain.
Here is one paddy who hopes she wins through!0 -
There is evidence that a lot of deportees get the tar beaten out of them for "disgracing the country". So we pay corrupt officials to say theyre looking after returnees and we couldn't care less what really happens to them. So when the Nigerian ambassador guarantees someones safety he is not being honest. They have guaranteed the safety on paper of every returnee since 2001 and have failed on every single occasion .35. TREATMENT OF RETURNED FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS
35.01 Regarding how returned failed asylum seekers are treated by the Nigerian
authorities, the British-Danish 2005 FFM report stated that:
“The delegation was able to hear first hand from two returned failed asylum
seekers who were separately attending the BHC in connection with visa
applications to return to the UK. The first applicant had been returned to
Nigeria with a certificate of identity issued by the UK authorities. The applicant said that he was questioned by the immigration authorities on return and held for about two or three hours while his identity was confirmed; he was not questioned by the SSS or anyone else. As soon as the applicant’s identity was confirmed the person in question was admitted to Nigeria. The applicant said that he had not encountered any problems or difficulties subsequently and has been issued a replacement passport through normal channels.
So from a sample of 2 they found that nobody was tortured. Why such a low sample I wonder?
Under the Irish-Nigerian agreement the Nigerians must report what happens to returnees to the Irish Government. Why arent they doing this?“The FFM delegation interviewed Jason Ivory, Head of the Visa Section at the
British High Commission in Abuja, about the treatment of returned failed
asylum seekers by the Nigerian authorities. He stated that it is not illegal for
Nigerians to travel abroad and apply for asylum. Therefore, the Nigerian
Immigration Service and the police would have no legal basis to detain and
arrest a returned failed asylum seeker. Officials at the British High
Commission in Abuja have regular contact with Nigerian NGOs and none of
these NGOs have reported to them that returned failed asylum seekers have
suffered human rights abuses. He was also not aware of any reports in the
Nigerian media to indicate that returned failed asylum seekers have been illtreated or suffered from any form of persecution from the Nigerian authorities.
Yes, And the Nigerians are great at keeping their legal obligations? No Prosecution ever under FGM Laws in Nigeria.
Also in 2007 the Nigerian media had its worst year of Police brutality ever with any deviant articles being followed up with "visits" by Police.The Head of the Visa Section explained that Nigerian failed asylum seekers
return back to Nigeria with temporary travel documents. These documents are
checked by immigration officials and the person concerned is then interviewed. The purpose of the interview is to verify the person’s identity and nationality and to ascertain why the person arrived back in Nigeria with a
temporary travel document. This is simply a formality and part of the standard
procedures carried out by immigration officials.
Once the immigration officials have verified the person’s identity and nationality, he is then let through the immigration control section of the airport and is free to continue his journey
Well they should have hundreds of examples of happy returnees but for some reason they could find only 2.Any thoughts on this?
From other COO reports the Police have been described to Rape, murder and torture detainees with impunity. The person who wins a dispute involving the Police is the one "with the most money".
Are we to believe the Nigerian authorities suddenly change character when faced with returned asylum seekers? I have quoted a report on the Politics forum that gives examples of deportees (many more than 2) who have not had such good luck with the Nigerian authorities on their return.
While youre at it could you find how well the Nigerians are treating returned
deportees under our agrteement with them? Perthaps you could also let me us know why the Nigerian Ambassador deliberately did not mention this agreement (which he is aware of) and why the reporter chose to ignore it also?Ireland has committed itself under the Agreement to safeguarding the human rights and dignity of those being returned, during the deportation process and when repatriation has taken place. The human rights of all persons deported under the Agreement must be respected. This includes the prohibition of undue force, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during the deportation process.
If this agreement was being fulfilled surely this was a trump card for our Ambassador friend. Yet he wisely chose to divert attention giving more empty promises on behalf of one of the most corrupt governments in the world and that reporter let him.
Daretulip, EF not referring to either of ye in the send her home brigade. Dont like terms like that so will stop using it.0 -
Don't get me wrong, I know you have an opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it. I may rubbish the claims that you make for whatever reasons but that is because my opinion differs to that of yours. I have no desire to judge you personally because of what you think, in the same way I still have a high regard for Sueme. We don't have to agree.I feel it is very wrong of you to assert that it is 'nonsensical that those childeren could face FGM'. They could and you know it, I know it and nobody has argued that it could not happen. It may not but it could and in their heads it will. I can see, from your point of view, that Pamela created this horror for her kids, but she did so after her child, Elizabeth, died from blood loss. I understand this, do you not?
Her children 'may' face FGM, i don't doubt that, but by the same token I may get ran over if i cross the road. I assert as nonsensical the notion that this is a given as to what will most assuredly happen if she and her children are deported, because there is no proof that it definitely will happen. I resent the fact that the ideal of 'It will definitely happen' is one of the reasons that is being used as a bargaining chip to stay. Scaremongering her children about it is not fair on them.
Again, I disagree with this simply on the grounds that it will set a precedent. Should she be granted leave to remain, all someone else needs to do is replicate her actions and get the same treatment. If they didn't then people would cry prejudice and racism.I think that sending her back is wrong. I would like to think that she will be allowed to stay here because of a combination of reasons/circumstances which indeed may not comply with our regulations.
I agree it would be a truly horrific experience and one that I would not want my daughter to go through (I have one too), but again I feel that her story lacks credibility and I think it is an unjust reason to stay. When people use the above reason as an argument I find its only served to try to guilt trip people. Otherwise, everyone who cries fear of FGM should be allowed to stay no questions asked.Being a father of a similiar aged girl I can not but feel it wrong to put her childeren through what will be the most horrific experience they could be put through.From memory the Sindo reported last Sunday that 70% of people (in some survey) are in favour of her being allowed to remain.
Surveys are pointless. I would say that 100% of people (if surveyed) would say that they would rather not pay income tax and not have to pay for a contribution to their pension, but it doesn't mean its going to happen.
What also irks me about this is the fact that people on the let her stay brigade again will harp on about various reasons as to why she should be let stay. Fair enough, but why haven't questions been asked to fill in the blanks of her story. As an analogy, a murder suspect would have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before convicted. Granted this may be an extreme, but why should she get a free ride?0 -
There are laws in place for a reason, just because the kids are adorable and what not and the rest of the emotive BS is not reason enough to grant someone asylum and rightly so should not be used as a basis for such decisions.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
From other COO reports the Police have been described to Rape, murder and torture detainees with impunity. The person who wins a dispute involving the Police is the one "with the most money".
Im sure most people would acknowledge, including myself, that the Nigerian police force is corrupt and in need of major reform. However, no Nigerian person would be deported from any country back to Nigeria if we were just to look at the effectiveness of the Nigerian police force.
Pamela's claim is to do with her fear that her children will suffer FGM and COI information has shown that it is possible to internally relocate to escape this threat, regardless of what the police do or do not do. The Minister relied on this information and the court's agreed that he was right to do so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement