Deported student to return

simu

I also support this decision so that's one more number you can add!

As others have said, there's quite a bit of difference between being here for a month or two and being here for two years. This guy had set down roots in the community, was involved in education and contributing to the economy through his part-time job. It's inhumane to pluck someone suddenly from such a life.

So, will this lead to a speeding up of the asylum seeking process or will it be left on the backburner only to lead to more of these situations?

Nevada

Where this situation is leading is not a good place.A referendum on deportation is now required, to keep our representatives straight on the issue

landser

The issue is more of a humanitarian one in my eyes. What exactly has the state to lose in allowing a 17 year old to finish the work he has spent the last two years of his life working for? He had been holding down a job and paying his own way, so exactly what does it cost the state to let him stay?

What rules we have in this state regarding asylum, deemed the person in question to have failed in his application. It is not for the minister, or anyone else, to overturn the decision. We have a separation of powers in this state for a very good reason. The decision of the asylum application is one which has a quasi judicial effect, and should not, imo, be subservient to the whim of any given minister. the corrollary of this is where someone is succesful in an applcaion, but the minister of the day decides to turf them out anyway.

How is this a troll. You have based an argument on something that you have decided to be true, despite the fact you have no evidence to support it.

It is quite obviously a troll, Bonkey knows that I do not have access to the Ministers pte. mail, and nor does he. I never said that the minister u-turned because of 300 hundred protesting. i think it was a fcator though, or do you knw that it wasn;t?


Why are you avoiding answering the question? Thats the only Troll I've seen.


I honestly did not know what he was trying to say. The use of double negatives in english is always problematic.

Its very simple. You are suggesting that the majority of Irish people didn't support the descision to let him return.

You seem to base this on the fact that only 300 turned out to protest. How do you make the leap that anyone who didn't protest didn't support the protesters?


Do I? I make the leap of faith, that only 300 turned up to support him out of 3.7m. Hardly a resounding success. You will also find that people rarely come out in support of a decision, only ever to oppose it. THe fact that 300 people only came out in protest at the decision speaks volumes for the fact that few believe that any injustice has been committed. Most objections to the deportation do not seem to be made on the grounds that his application shoould've been succesful simplicitor, but rather that his failed application should have been processed more quickly. I also think that it's terrible that this happened... but only in the sense that it took two years to reach the decision. The decision would seem to be a sound one, albeit tardy. I, therefore, despite the fact that i think the order should stand, am somewhat in support of the protestors.

simu

Nevada wrote:

Where this situation is leading is not a good place.A referendum on deportation is now required, to keep our representatives straight on the issue

Doing what? What part of the constitution do you think needs to be changed?

landser

landser wrote:

Troll

might I remind you of a certain part of the boards charter...

Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderating" above.

You have been formally warned,another abuse and there will be a holiday for you.

landser

Earthman wrote:

might I remind you of a certain part of the boards charter...


You have been formally warned,another abuse and there will be a holiday for you.

Ouch, my wrists!

Fair enough, though.

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

Quite simple really. He'll be sent back home in 6 months or so. Having done his Leaving Certificate in the mean time. What good is that for the Irish State?


And I am quite certain that the public were content with the initial decision, 200 students don't speak for the country.

Quite simple really but you didn't answer my question or refer to any of the three impacts that I referred to.

Why are you avoiding the issue?

GuanYin

landser wrote:

What rules we have in this state regarding asylum, deemed the person in question to have failed in his application. It is not for the minister, or anyone else, to overturn the decision. We have a separation of powers in this state for a very good reason. The decision of the asylum application is one which has a quasi judicial effect, and should not, imo, be subservient to the whim of any given minister. the corrollary of this is where someone is succesful in an applcaion, but the minister of the day decides to turf them out anyway.

Quite frankly, he should never have been allowed make the application alone anyway, or at least the state made the mistake in allowing a minor fill out the forms unverified. How many other state documents do you see where a parent or guardian is not required to counter sign for anyone under 18. If the original application was erroneous, its the fault of whoever authorised/countersigned his document.

It is quite obviously a troll, Bonkey knows that I do not have access to the Ministers pte. mail, and nor does he. I never said that the minister u-turned because of 300 hundred protesting. i think it was a fcator though, or do you knw that it wasn;t?

I saw it of an unsubtle way of pointing out that you are making an argument you can't back up or justify. He pointed it out very well imho.

Do I? I make the leap of faith, that only 300 turned up to support him out of 3.7m. Hardly a resounding success. You will also find that people rarely come out in support of a decision, only ever to oppose it. THe fact that 300 people only came out in protest at the decision speaks volumes for the fact that few believe that any injustice has been committed.

By this logic, will you conceed that if less than the approximated 300 come out to protest the descision to let him return, then the democratic majority wants him here?

Villain

psi wrote:

Quite simple really but you didn't answer my question or refer to any of the three impacts that I referred to.

Why are you avoiding the issue?

I think Mr Fiesta may have been banned PSI have a look in the mod forum

GuanYin

irish1 wrote:

I think Mr Fiesta may have been banned PSI have a look in the mod forum

Ah well, I'm sure Arcade has another few sleeper accounts to activate before the weekend is out.

landser

psi wrote:

I saw it of an unsubtle way of pointing out that you are making an argument you can't back up or justify. He pointed it out very well imho.

You're easily impressed. His point was poor to say the least. Firstly, he assumed that I had said McDowell u-turned due to a protest by 300. My post did not say that. Even if i had, all he did was say, how do i know this, do i have access to his pte papers. This is the debating equivalent of sticking your tongue out, putting your thumbs in your ears, waving you fingers and saying nah-nah, nah-nah-nah. A better retort would have been to disagree with any such assertion and back it up with fact/opinion.



By this logic, will you conceed that if less than the approximated 300 come out to protest the descision to let him return, then the democratic majority wants him here?

No, the problem here is that if anyone were to dare to protest about this, they would immediately be deemed a racist and severely rebuked and abused. I am against letting him back, but i could not dare to say it beyond my own friends, who know that i am not racist. as i said earlier, Myers made a few good points re this matter in yesterdays IT.

GuanYin

landser wrote:

psi wrote:

You're easily impressed. His point was poor to say the least. Firstly, he assumed that I had said McDowell u-turned due to a protest by 300. My post did not say that. Even if i had, all he did was say, how do i know this, do i have access to his pte papers. This is the debating equivalent of sticking your tongue out, putting your thumbs in your ears, waving you fingers and saying nah-nah, nah-nah-nah. A better retort would have been to disagree with any such assertion and back it up with fact/opinion.

But you didn't use fact. You second guessed what influenced the minister. You used no facts and he pointed this out. So your point is pretty much something that you made up.

No, the problem here is that if anyone were to dare to protest about this, they would immediately be deemed a racist and severely rebuked and abused. I am against letting him back, but i could not dare to say it beyond my own friends, who know that i am not racist. as i said earlier, Myers made a few good points re this matter in yesterdays IT.

Ok so, you are thereby conceeding to the fact that some people, who feel strongly for an issue are not required to protest in orderto validate this issue?

In otherwords, just because only 200 people protested, doesn't mean that they didn't represent the feeling of the majority of the country.

Now I have no way to prove this and I'm not even saying its the case. What I *am* saying is, just because you feel its the wrong thing, doesn't mean you're in the majority in this country.

aodh_rua

psi - I don't think landser 'conceeded' any such thing.

People are unlikely to protest or campaign for the status quo - hence radicals protesting regularly while the overwhelming proportion of the population constitute a silent majority. As for 200 people being representative of anything - what it does show is that the man in question affected a number of people while he was here. It doesn't say anything about popular feeling in general - except maybe that nobody else felt strongly enough either way to hit the streets.

I feel that this seems to have postponed the inevitable and generated cost to the state that could better have been spent on genuine applicants and our own social services.

Raskolnikov

It's ridiculous. They've spent God knows what flying this guy to Nigeria, only to fly him back the very same week. If he was deported legitimatly, then he should have stayed deported. Something like this only makes a shambles of the asylum process.

sovtek

When ya think about it...it's the highest in hypocrisy?
"We" went over to places like Africa...ruled it for hundreds of years...screwed it up completely (and continue to do so). And when these people come over here to live in a stable country (partially made on the backs of said people) "we" say "nope sorry, someone isn't really going to kill you back home".
IMHO they are ALL legitimately in this country.

simu

sovtek wrote:

"We" went over to places like Africa...ruled it for hundreds of years...

There were Irish colonies in Africa? :eek: Have all my history books lied?

sovtek

simu wrote:

There were Irish colonies in Africa? :eek: Have all my history books lied?

Type "1820 settlers" into Google and let us know what ya come back with.
Then look up some place names in various African countries....like Kenilworth, Athlone, Kiliney....etc etc

aodh_rua

The greater part of colonial forces were Irish or Scottish, so it was as much our empire as anyone else's.

simu

aodh_rua wrote:

The greater part of colonial forces were Irish or Scottish, so it was as much our empire as anyone else's.

Yet we didn't get much of a say in how our own part of the empire was run at the time. Anyway, I don't wan't to get into a history discussion here. My point is that ideas like "the white man's/Europe's burden" and so on have no place in present day treatment of asylum seekers.

Stable countries should grant asylum and oppose corrupt and abusive regimes because generally, it's considered a good thing for people to be able to live free of persecution and not because of some guilt-trip about the past.

sceptre

simu wrote:

Yet we didn't get much of a say in how our own part of the empire was run at the time. Anyway, I don't wan't to get into a history discussion here. My point is that ideas like "the white man's/Europe's burden" and so on have no place in present day treatment of asylum seekers.

They don't imho. They shouldn't. A debate starting with "Our country didn't oppress your people so why should we give a damn" is only a short step from "I didn't personally oppress your people (and who the hell are you anyway?) so why should I give a damn". Which leads neatly, without any hoop-bouncing, on to "I didn't cause your disability so why should you be catered for out of my hard-earned when they're building ramps up to government buildings". I skipped the welfare-taxation-based state and funded health service on the way as some people tend to have "views" about such things.

Stable countries should grant asylum and oppose corrupt and abusive regimes because generally, it's considered a good thing for people to be able to live free of persecution and not because of some guilt-trip about the past.

I agree with the basis for consideration. As it happens I agree with the conclusion as well but that wasn't why I'm agreeing with simu here.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

segadreamcast

aodh_rua wrote:

An uncharacteristic change of heart from the Minister for Justice, which he has put down to some night-time reflection that caused him to decide his action was overly harsh.

I know that the human face of any deportation is difficult to deal with, but if the man in question got a fair crack at the system, and due process was followed, is the Minister's decision likely to open the floodgates for other 'mercy' cases? Personally, I would've let him see out his studies in the first place, but surely once a decision was taken, it should've been kept. The confusion and cost to bring him back is not doing the system any favours.

From breakingnews.ie

Exactly how I feel on the situation - though it doesn't seem to be a very popular line to take at the moment as the residents of Palmerstown ride on the 'look at us - we're not racist!' wave of enthusiasm that makes anyone who opposes his return look like a racist when, in fact, they are not.

Basically I have one main problem with this:

The floodgates are open for reconsidering deportations and, already, we are seeing various different campaigns being launched throughout Dublin and, indeed, the country in order to get various 'popular' residents back. Should a refugee be granted return to this country just because there are a few local (sorry) loudmouths on their side? If a decision was taken - should it not be binding? Indeed, all of this controversy is originating from what is the first mass deportation to be undertaken this year yet, already, we have the Government doing U-turns on 'special/compassionate/other vote winning word' grounds. What will happen in subsequent flights?

The reason (allegedly, apparently, supposedly...) that this student was allowed to return was so that he could finish his studies for his Leaving Cert. Of course, subsequently, anyone who watched news reports realised that he also worked "30 to 40 hours per week" in a local Supervalu. Naturally, to me, something smelled a bit 'off' here - and I was pretty sure it wasn't the produce at Supervalu - thus, I decided to dig a bit deeper.

I spoke to a friend of mine (I won't name her for obvious reasons) who works at Palmerstown Community School who stated that: "I'd be somewhat surprised if he even passed some of his subjects - academics isn't his strong point."

Thus, we have a student who has been allowed to return to sit his Leaving Ceritificate - getting priority over mothers, fathers, families and indeed, various other students who have been deported down through the years. And why? His Leaving Cert? Not a chance. Local schoolchildren who will - let's face it - decide to start striking at the drop of a hat? Yep. I don't doubt that he had his friends there - infact it's clear he was a very popular guy. However, if you sift through the news archives, you'll notice some of the people interviewed barely had a clue about him - indeed, some couldn't even pronounce his name properly. Was this a mere act of desperation on the part of residents who are desperately trying to prove that they are accepting and open to multiculturalism? Perhaps. Was it different from many other cases of deportation - if we ignore the protests by such residents? No.

Thus, he should not have been reintroduced to this country under the grounds of the student visa - though personally I don't believe he should have been deported in the first place, I think it's a far more dangerous precedent to renege on the initial decision.

gerrydublin

Raskolnikov wrote:

It's ridiculous. They've spent God knows what flying this guy to Nigeria, only to fly him back the very same week. If he was deported legitimatly, then he should have stayed deported. Something like this only makes a shambles of the asylum process.

I'm sure they can claim the expenses back off the Nigeria government for the flights. It's the least they can pay for seeing as how they allowed someone leave their country without the correct papers!
Anyway, we wasted money flying Mary Robinson around the world for years, so paying for meaningless journeys is not something new for the Irish.

KnowItAll

This student has a criminal record. Just thought ye should know. It would be nice if people knew the real people who they wanted to be in the country.

sceptre

KnowItAll wrote:

This student has a criminal record. Just thought ye should know.

You're not referring to this are you?

It would be nice if people knew the real people who they wanted to be in the country.

Indeed but the Internet confers a reasonable degree of anonymity on people. Still, I'd be grateful for a link given that you chose to bring this thread back from the dead in your first post on the site as we tend to like people to stand over comments when they're presented as a clincher to summat. You may think of me as a bleeding heart liberal but I'm really an old anti-mouthfoaming conservative at heart so hence the request for a link.

pickarooney

Perhaps the government should operate a one-in/one-out policy of migration. For each successful immigration applicant, an unworthy native gets the heave-ho. For instance, if and when this chap gets his leaving cert, some dosser kid who didn't bother his arse at school gets expelled (from the country) to make room for him. Just need to figure out where to send 'em...

rightleftright

There are too many of em here already, we need to scale the problem down to about 10,000. Which can be called an acceptable level to any normal person. Of course, liberals wont we satisified until there are 10 million here.

alan1978

Hi Guys,

I hear Kunle, the famous Nigerian criminal is to be deported again. According to the Minister, his presence in Ireland would be contrary to the common good. Well seeing as he’s on a 6 month visa and is now a convicted criminal – it makes sense to remove him asap. There will be little public sympathy for him this time!

Full story is here on RTE - http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0125/eluhanlao.html

Guy:Incognito

TBH, nothing to do with this particular case (I wasnt aware he had a criminal record) but an immigrant who gets a record should serve whatever sentence (if they are given a custodial one) and then deported, permenantly. Similar to teh US where you can't get a VISA if you have a drug conviction (or any conviction? i dont know)

alan1978

Just wait till residents against racism (anarchists in poor disguises) protest. They won't have a leg to stand on, we will hear far fetched tales of butchery to come if he returns to Nigeria - all rubish. The end result will be Kunle returning to where he belongs. If criminals are not allowed apply for US visa's, they shouldn't be allowed to hold Irish visa's aswell.