Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

speedboatchase

Regardless of her personal experiences, I think this case should be dealt with rationally. The woman entered the country illegally and is an illegal immigrant. If the courts set a precedent and then 10 more ppl give the same excuse of FGM, should they all stay? Well, they're going to have to if we pass on her case.

And of course the news that she would be allowed stay would be international and show the world that we're a soft touch when it comes to illegal immigration, so "10 more ppl" would be a gross understatement. I feel sorry for the kids but the argument that "ooh we'll just allow it for her, the poor woman" doesnt hold weight because it sets a danerous precedent that plenty of illegal immigrants would follow.

What's everyone elses thoughts? I'm glad this is making people face up to the horrors of female genitial mutilation but that is, I repeat NOT, a product of the West and our values. It is Nigerias cross to bear and under no circumstances should our values and ideals be compromised or vilified over whatever decision is finally met IMO

dresden8

How in the spirit of multi-culturalism can we slag off Nigeria's ancient and wise customs?

Shame on all those racists who judge all those people just because they happen to be foreigners.

Pete4779

Yup. I absolutely think she and anyone she is responsible for should be deported. The far-left appeasment is what is causing this endless appeal system, and she should not be here in the first place.

It's you and me that will end up paying - and I would rather pay (my taxes) to help some local kid get free schooling than pay for endless legal costs and social welfare support for people who are here purely to leech our system.

If isn't about the money or financial welfare tourism in Ireland, these people wouldn't be here. They certainly weren't trying their best to stay when we were poor as dirt 20 years ago, and it's not like there are suddenly loads of direct flights from here to Lagos.

(Anybody from Nigeria who isn't here with a working visa must be an illegal immigrant or is else claiming asylum for some reason as there is no other way they could arrive here as first port of call in EU and claim asylum. E.g., the major of Portlaoise, who to claim asylum valiantly told us of the threats against him from his home in Nigeria and how he needed to stay, but where he subsequently was received as an honoured guest at his home town after becoming Mayor).

Of course there is a threat of FMG in Nigeria. Likewise, there is a threat of religious persecution in Northern Ireland but I don't see a lot of people there claiming asylum in Pakistan, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

What's everyone elses thoughts? I'm glad this is making people face up to the horrors of female genitial mutilation but that is, I repeat NOT, a product of the West and our values. It is Nigerias cross to bear and under no circumstances should our values and ideals be compromised or vilified over whatever decision is finally met IMO

So knowingly sending her daughters back to be mutilated is alright then? Sorry, thats bull. If we are against FGM, we should help this Woman and her children. Instead of sending them back, where they girls will be mutilated. We should allow them to stay, they are in very real danger and we shouldn't turn our back on them. Allowing them to stay is upholding our values, sending them back would be taking our values and tossing them in a rubbish tip.

speedboatchase

FGM is disgusting BUT it is not our concern, its Nigerias. We shouldn't overhaul our laws or create a dangerous precedent to allow illegal immigrants the right to appease our governments by exploiting this appalling facet of THEIR country's customs, not ours.

If she stays, how many families arrive with the same excuse? FGM protestors are in the right but this is the wrong fight

dsmythy

Kevin Myers wrote a piece on this.

Pretty much echos my own thoughts on it.

Bubs101

Considering the economic climate I think it's about time that the state started focusing on Ireland and lowered the amount of time and money spent on foreign nationals and aid. Use her and her kids as an example and send them back. She broke the law, it should be enofrced

Mr.Micro

We should show a bit of compassion and allow the woman and her children to
stay in Ireland. Why should she or her children be forced back to possible mutilation, regardless of how the practice is not Ireland's responsibility. To go back to the same argument I am sure has been stated countless times before, us Irish went everywhere in the world looking for opportunity and work, so let us be generous and wise.

dsmythy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We should show a bit of compassion and allow the woman and her children to
stay in Ireland. Why should she or her children be forced back to possible mutilation, regardless of how the practice is not Ireland's responsibility. To go back to the same argument I am sure has been stated countless times before, us Irish went everywhere in the world looking for opportunity and work, so let us be generous and wise.

God i hate that argument. I don't think it has anything to do with us today and our policies towards migration.

Mr.Micro

dsmythy wrote: »

God i hate that argument. I don't think it has anything to do with us today and our policies towards migration.

I think it is very relevant in that its only 5 minutes ago that people started to come to live and work in Ireland, before that we were a people exporter. Now we want to close the door. It does not work like that we have a responsibility to all people who live or reside in Ireland.

Sesshoumaru

dsmythy wrote: »

Kevin Myers wrote a piece on this.

Pretty much echos my own thoughts on it.

I had heard of this in the news a while back but had no idea this murderer walked free. This for me just exemplifies everything that is wrong with the West today. Multiculturalist hippies telling people how bad they are for belonging to Western civilisation and to respect inferior cultural practices :mad:

Anyway I am sceptical about this woman's claims. But at the same time I'd be hesitant to send her back. I'd let her stay as long as every effort is made to make sure she finds employment here and works for a living. If it's as bad as she claims in Nigeria, then she should be very happy just to be able to live here and work.

Pete4779

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We should show a bit of compassion and allow the woman and her children to
stay in Ireland. Why should she or her children be forced back to possible mutilation, regardless of how the practice is not Ireland's responsibility. To go back to the same argument I am sure has been stated countless times before, us Irish went everywhere in the world looking for opportunity and work, so let us be generous and wise.

1. She and here children should be deported because I personally no longer can afford to keep feeding the voracious welfare appetite of the third world as it arrives in Ireland. This is what tax is. When you wonder why the hospitals, roads and education systems of taxpayers are so bad, no you know why: so many millions are tied up asylum and immigration costs. Next time some asylum seeker keeps appealing, gets costs, etc., awarded for a few hundred grand, remember that it means no ultrasound scanner, no CT scanner, no new social work team in your community. It is why there is no local breast cancer service. It is why there is no extra teacher to make the classes smaller.

2. Irish people went abroad to work and in conditions that had zero social welfare or support structures by the government. The equivalent would
be for her to remain and receive no social supports. The situations are not equivalent, or else Ireland would be claiming reparations from the UK for the lack of support during the famine the same as Israel gets support form Germany. We don't, and we didn't.

Mr.Micro

Pete4779, I do'nt buy that argument. The health service and the rest have always been c..p in Ireland due to incompetent governments in the past and the like, appointing non experts in jobs where they did not have a clue. Since the boom times started in 1995 or thereabouts there has been a little bit of infrastructure put in but not enough. Education, transport, health all still falling behind and its nothing to do with funding foreign nationals etc its just down right waste and incompetence.

Mr.Micro

dresden8 wrote: »

Leave Nigeria alone you racist.

I presume thats an attempt at a flat joke? I never mentioned Nigeria nor am I a racist.

dsmythy

ShakeyBlakey wrote: »

20year ago we were leaving in our droves you muppit, what do you think of the illegal irish all around the world you fool

Quit the abuse would you. They should be deported to Ireland.

dsmythy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think it is very relevant in that its only 5 minutes ago that people started to come to live and work in Ireland, before that we were a people exporter. Now we want to close the door. It does not work like that we have a responsibility to all people who live or reside in Ireland.

And i hope those who are granted permission to stay are all taken care of. But if the deportation order is eventually given the go ahead then she should be returned home. We don't owe anybody anything.

GuanYin

Tone down the abuse or you'll all be banned.

Mr.Micro

dsmythy wrote: »

And i hope those who are granted permission to stay are all taken care of. But if the deportation order is eventually given the go ahead then she should be returned home. We don't owe anybody anything.

If the deportation order is served then its down to the authorities, to act on what they have decided. No we do not owe anything to anybody but to our own people at home and abroad and our European partners. We should still treat immigration cases individually and give each case individual consideration and never lose compassion.

Pete4779

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pete4779, I do'nt buy that argument.

fair enough. But allow me a chance to show how much our tax money is diverted away from services for taxpayers to asylum seekers:

Please note that welfare payments to asylum seekers are paid by the HSE sectors (previously health boards). The huge budgets giving to HSE sectors (see www.hse.ie are not for salaries for doctors, nurses and hospital equipment. Billions are spent every year on social services.

1. Oireactas Report 2000: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0537/D.0537.200105240147.html
- €50 million costs for year 2000 in SWA (Supplemental Welfare Allowance)
- €57 million in estimated costs for 2001 in SWA

2. RTE 2003: http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1008/mcdowellm.html
- €47 million in 2003 in processing alone
- €330 million in 2003 cost to other departments (this means things like health and education)

3. PD's Mary Harney Self-congratulatory statement (2007): http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/about_us/national_conference_speeches/speech_by_minister_michael_mcdowell_td/
- €120 Million costs per year to Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform alone.
- €340 Million costs per year to all departments to pay for non-justice related costs for asylum seekers (this is where things like SWA, Rent Allowances, for asylum seekers get paid out of HSe budgets).


So, you may still not believe me. However, it is as clear as day and public knowledge that there are hundreds of millions of tax payer money being handed over to asylum seekers in various forms every year. That €340 Million *every year* is a lot of money - and I do believe that without those asylum seeker support costs, the money could have been better spent on getting more hospital facilitires, beds, nurses, doctors, teachers, SNAs, etc.,. Do you not agree?

Noone denies that the health service was ever anything but awful, but that is no reason to throw in the towel and give our tax money to asylum seekers who never earned or payed a cent for it. It is not our job to heal the world anymore than it is America's job to police it. However, we are footing the bill for health care for the third world just like americans are footing the military bill. It is a ridiculous rebuttle to imply that "sure it's always been bad, so we should just accept it".

It is time to stop our tax payments going to asylum seekers. It is time our tax improved our local health, education and transport services.

purple'n'gold

If there is a problem with FGM in Nigeria, its Nigeria’s problem and up to Nigeria to deal with it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with us. This lady and her children are in this country illegally and are due to be deported. Hopefully they will be, very soon, and I also hope it reported widely and internationally. The word has to go out; Ireland is not a soft touch. Illegal immigrants are not welcome.

Mr.Micro

Pete4779, I accept it costs money but I do think that all our EU partners have the same problems. In our democratic country that has become very prosperous we have to accept that migration to here will occur, some migrants will be illegal, economic, asylum seekers etc. We cannot just shut up shop and close our borders. It then takes time to process all these new people and then there is the processes of appeal etc. As you rightly say it all costs big money. Its a problem historically AFAIK that we have never had, so its a learning curve.

Firetrap

For once, I find myself agreeing with Kevin Myers :eek: It's hard not to think that Ireland's been ridden sideways by a certain percentage of asylum seekers because we didn't/don't have systems in place to deal with this relatively new phenomenon.

It's hard not to get the impression that if she hadn't cited FGM as a reason not to be deported, it would have been torture or something like that. Let's face it, if any of us were in her shoes, we'd try every trick in the book as well.

GuanYin

Shakeyblakey banned, dresden8 warned.

Even the slightest hint of abuse or racism in this thread and you'll be banned on the spot.

Keep it civil and use the report post function if you have an issue.

Malice

Firetrap wrote: »

For once, I find myself agreeing with Kevin Myers :eek:

Same here, it feels strange .

Firetrap wrote:

It's hard not to get the impression that if she hadn't cited FGM as a reason not to be deported, it would have been torture or something like that. Let's face it, if any of us were in her shoes, we'd try every trick in the book as well.

He makes a very valid point where he wonders how many countries she passed through between Nigeria and Ireland. It reminds me of the case of that autistic Nigerian boy last year where the media quietly ignored the fact that the woman and her son had gone from Nigeria to Italy and from there to Ireland before being deported back to Nigeria.

As far as I'm aware the procedure must be done with parental consent so if she's not going to give consent, where's the issue? Of course these questions will probably be avoided because the ever lovable Residents Against Racism will rear their heads to offer their opinion to the national media.

walrusgumble

dresden8 wrote: »

How in the spirit of multi-culturalism can we slag off Nigeria's ancient and wise customs?

Shame on all those racists who judge all those people just because they happen to be foreigners.

you are missing the whole point

it is a bit rich considerering you do not know the facts of this case as the RAC & RAT transcript are not available to the public. It is up to the applicant to prove that her case is credible and plausible and that her fear is matched by an objective fear. We do not know what credibility issues if any there are available. As required by international case law and the handbook on criteria in determining refugee status, we also do not know if she actually went to the police and sought their protection, or if the police acted, if she did not and had no reasonable reason for failing to do so, she has failed to exhaust all her options in her home country - ie allow the police the opportunity to protect her and bring culprits to justice

realible country of origin provides the FGM is not common in Nigeria, only in small parts, however, the police treat this matter serious, particularily when it leads to a murder. moreover, it is only carried out against children by at least 5 years old. moreover, coi provides that there are ngo's available to provide assistance and their is the opportunity to make a complaint to the higher level in the police department.

so, provided her case stands - which is highly possible it does not (cases like these rarely succeed in other jurisdictions, just because she has a problem, COI provides that it is possible for her to avail of state protection in her home country. unless such evidence provides the contrary this she should not be allowed to stay as she and her family have no need for protection.

its as simple as that, however, if evidence is contrary well then faire enough she deserves to stay, it got NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. the sooner some people get that into their heads the better., the court can only decide on how the deicsion was made, did the dept have regard for all info and apply the right tests. the court in this instance does not mean its a court of appeal - the dept , ORAC & RAT is left to deciding what facts are true or not

walrusgumble

wes wrote: »

So knowingly sending her daughters back to be mutilated is alright then? Sorry, thats bull. If we are against FGM, we should help this Woman and her children. Instead of sending them back, where they girls will be mutilated. We should allow them to stay, they are in very real danger and we shouldn't turn our back on them. Allowing them to stay is upholding our values, sending them back would be taking our values and tossing them in a rubbish tip.

have a check of coi from homeoffice.gov, us dept of state, canadian refugee board (all these sites can be got at irishrefugeecouncil.ie) does fgm really happen in nigeria?, if so is it a major problem that the authorities do not try and tackle this? is they do, which coi provides is the case, then there is no case for subsidiary protection or leave to remain. are they really in danger, because if not, is there story reasonable, if not, then they do not meet the criteria for non refoulement. again, this case has nothing to do with upholding our values


if anything, by preventing frivolous cases in upholds the intergrity of our asylum system and common good. taking cases that do not support themselves and are cock and bull are not in the interest of the state

daithicarr

a lot of this money is squandered on inefficent services. i am sure you are all aware of what the public servant culture in this country is like. In reialdn, we prevent asylum seekers from working, we give them foos and boarding and they get a mesely 15 euro a week each for personal spending. thats exactly how much they get. i know because a few of my friends have worked with asylum seekers. its the system which is at fault, our goverment are notoriously inefficent with just about everything they put there hand to, sinking our money down the drain across the board.

In Ireland we get about 4,000 asylum applications a year, and accept about 400. those 400 then go on to work, thats what they want, so the contribute to the society. the problem is the other 3,600 might not be instantly deported as there cases are processed very slowly.

while i would be some what sceptical of people claiming asylum form Nigeria, as its not the worst place in the world. our goverment turn away plenty of genuine cases. people from places like Iraq and Afghanistan etc, where lets face it, they might have some case.

many of the people coming from these places are quite skilled and willing to work, its a waste for them and for us to have the languishing in refugee centers.

irish_bob

Pete4779 wrote: »

1. She and here children should be deported because I personally no longer can afford to keep feeding the voracious welfare appetite of the third world as it arrives in Ireland. This is what tax is. When you wonder why the hospitals, roads and education systems of taxpayers are so bad, no you know why: so many millions are tied up asylum and immigration costs. Next time some asylum seeker keeps appealing, gets costs, etc., awarded for a few hundred grand, remember that it means no ultrasound scanner, no CT scanner, no new social work team in your community. It is why there is no local breast cancer service. It is why there is no extra teacher to make the classes smaller.

2. Irish people went abroad to work and in conditions that had zero social welfare or support structures by the government. The equivalent would
be for her to remain and receive no social supports. The situations are not equivalent, or else Ireland would be claiming reparations from the UK for the lack of support during the famine the same as Israel gets support form Germany. We don't, and we didn't.

i can no longer afford to feed the voracious appetite of our over paid and under worked surplus to requirements public servants

however i think this woman should be allowed to stay , i think this is a genuine case

one other thing , i find it amusing that certain people in here who in a thread about muslim customs of FGM , will defend this practice to the hilt but when this practice is a debate in the context of deporting an illegal immigrant , the same people use threat of FGM as an argument for the immigrants to remain here

wes

walrusgumble wrote: »

have a check of coi from homeoffice.gov, us dept of state, canadian refugee board (all these sites can be got at irishrefugeecouncil.ie) does fgm really happen in nigeria?, if so is it a major problem that the authorities do not try and tackle this? is they do, which coi provides is the case, then there is no case for subsidiary protection or leave to remain. are they really in danger, because if not, is there story reasonable, if not, then they do not meet the criteria for non refoulement. again, this case has nothing to do with upholding our values


if anything, by preventing frivolous cases in upholds the intergrity of our asylum system and common good. taking cases that do not support themselves and are cock and bull are not in the interest of the state

If as your trying to say that FGM isn't something thats common in Nigeria and the police there are willing to protect her, then yes she should be sent home. I will have to read up on it, to see if what you saying is accurate.

As for our values, I was responding to other posters, who seemed to have the impression that her children could suffer FGM, even if sent back, and had no issue with it, saying its not our problem. However, as you pointed out that may not be the case. If they are in genuine danger of FGM however, to send them back would be pretty inhumane.

Dr_Teeth

FGM is no arguement for asylum. It's not like her kids are going to be dragged off the plane the moment it touches down in Lagos Airport and attacked. It's a barbaric practice but uncommon in Nigeria and only happens in the really backward Muslim north from what I have read, and it happens because parents want it to happen, for whatever crazy cultural reason.

Liam Byrne

Can I ask a question ? Why did she arrive as an "illegal" immigrant ?? Why didn't she go through the proper channels ?

I would guess that if she'd arrived legally that there would be no issue with her being here.

So, broken down to that, is her plight of her own making ?

djpbarry

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

It's a barbaric practice but uncommon in Nigeria and only happens in the really backward Muslim north from what I have read...

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I ask a question ? Why did she arrive as an "illegal" immigrant ?? Why didn't she go through the proper channels ?

I was of the understanding that she applied for asylum as soon as she arrived in Ireland, which would make her an asylum seeker rather than an illegal alien.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I ask a question ? Why did she arrive as an "illegal" immigrant ?? Why didn't she go through the proper channels ?

I would guess that if she'd arrived legally that there would be no issue with her being here.

So, broken down to that, is her plight of her own making ?

work permits and green cards are extremely difficult to obtain. since nigeria is a visa required country, and the fact that many come here, it may be difficult to obtain a vistor visa etc

Tha Gopher

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think it is very relevant in that its only 5 minutes ago that people started to come to live and work in Ireland, before that we were a people exporter. Now we want to close the door. It does not work like that we have a responsibility to all people who live or reside in Ireland.

Christ, how many times!

The English shot themselves in the foot by letting in every Irish person who wanted in at a time when the British economy, while, in London at least, healthier than ours, was not doing particularly well either.

It is lucky for us that they did let us in. Fact is they were unwise to do so.

bartholomewbinn

How did she get here in the first place? There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland. Is it possible to do this without proper visas etc? Is it just like getting a ticket from Dublin to Cork on Aer Arann? If so the entire system is a joke.

PaintingMedium

What I read, someone please correct me if these were lies, is that her and her huband came to the Netherlands firstly, then they went to the U.K. and whilst applying there, they came to Ireland. So first port of call is it??

Another thing I have read is that there is a ten year difference between when her child died and when she came to Ireland, so if you are fleeing, why would you flee with the husband that did this to your dead child and secondly, why the huge difference in years.

Something is very unusal in this case, and I think we are not being told the full story, I have faith in Mr Lenihan (and I hate FF) that he will be able to see the truth in this matter and act accordingly

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland.

Indeed she did; I believe she travelled via Amsterdam.

PaintingMedium wrote: »

What I read, someone please correct me if these were lies, is that her and her huband came to the Netherlands firstly, then they went to the U.K. and whilst applying there, they came to Ireland.

I have not read anything that suggested she had applied for asylum anywhere other than Ireland. She had applied for a UK visa in 2004, but I do not believe an application for asylum was made.

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Another thing I have read is that there is a ten year difference between when her child died and when she came to Ireland, so if you are fleeing, why would you flee with the husband that did this to your dead child and secondly, why the huge difference in years.

From what I have read, it was the husband's family who were responsible, rather than the husband himself. Secondly, I understand she relocated within Nigeria after the birth of her two surviving daughters, but violent attempts were made to abduct them, so she fled to Ireland. As far as I know, this has all been accepted by the High Court. The problem is (as far as the Court is concerned) that she failed to prove as a matter of certainty that the children would be circumcised if sent home.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

How did she get here in the first place? There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore she would have had to get a ticket to some other European country and then travel onwards to Ireland. Is it possible to do this without proper visas etc? Is it just like getting a ticket from Dublin to Cork on Aer Arann? If so the entire system is a joke.

You have been told the answerr to this many times. I'll tell you again and if I see you ask the question again, I'll assume you are a troll deliberately spreading misinformation.

The first immigration checkpoint you enter is the first port of call. When you land in transit, you are not generally subject to immigration. You can fly from Non EU countries to Ireland, via another EU country without ever going through immigration (I have done it).

In addition, the definition of first port of call is not a literal one. There have been threads explaining this in detail that you have participated in.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

You have been told the answerr to this many times. I'll tell you again and if I see you ask the question again, I'll assume you are a troll deliberately spreading misinformation.

The first immigration checkpoint you enter is the first port of call. When you land in transit, you are not generally subject to immigration. You can fly from Non EU countries to Ireland, via another EU country without ever going through immigration (I have done it).

In addition, the definition of first port of call is not a literal one. There have been threads explaining this in detail that you have participated in.

I am not a troll and the question I am asking is this, can someone (who is not an EU citizen) buy a ticket from Nigeria to Ireland (via wherever) in Lagos with no visa. just pay their money and buy a ticket.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not a troll and the question I am asking is this, can someone (who is not an EU citizen) buy a ticket from Nigeria to Ireland (via wherever) in Lagos with no visa. just pay their money and buy a ticket.

I don't have a VISA to work in Ireland, I was in Ireland very recently. I bought a ticket online, turned up at the airport, showed my passport, got on a plane, stopped at immigration in Dublin.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I don't have a VISA to work in Ireland, I was in Ireland very recently. I bought a ticket online, turned up at the airport, showed my passport, got on a plane, stopped at immigration in Dublin.

What happened then? When you were stopped at immigration? I take it you came from outside the EU.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What happened then? When you were stopped at immigration? I take it you came from outside the EU.

What normally happens when someone from outside of the EU comes to an EU immigration checkpoint, they looked at my documents.

I could, I assume, have sought asylum at that point.

bartholomewbinn

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

What normally happens when someone from outside of the EU comes to an EU immigration checkpoint, they looked at my documents.

I could, I assume, have sought asylum at that point.

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

So? Visa checks are the sole reponsibility of the Immigration office of the country.

It is not the remit of the airline or travel agent to work on Visas, indeed they would probably be in violation of internationa law were they to do so.

The airline merely has to keep a record of who is travelling and ensure the person on the ticket is the person on the plane.

Likewise, when I go to Asia or the EU on an US passport, noone ever checks my Visa status before I enter the country.


As I said, there is noone checking immigration status between your exit port and your final destination.

The sole exception to all of this is Aer Lingus flights from Ireland to the US, where immigration is before boarding the plane.

walrusgumble

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ok, so what you are saying is there are no checks or questions when you buy your ticket, and you are not stopped or your documents checked until you reach wherever your tickets final destination is.

It says here that Nigeria is one of the countries that citizens must apply for a visa before they can travel here.
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=8777

i am not surprised about this - it is happening.

if one observes the few transcripts the rat, all if most, claim (ie asylum seekers who came into ireland with the assistance of a travel agent and on forge passports) where able to pass by the immigration officers without a bother. of course the tribunal does not tend to believe them- but its a regular claim - something must be wrong, are these immigration officers doing proper checks - there are way to many claims made that they easily got through. the dept should monitor this, how many are on patrol at a given time- damn all of these people are charged under the theft and fruad act 2001, illgeal immigrant act 2000 or immigration act 2004? (of course international law and guidelines request that asylum seekers dont get punished-which in many cases considering genuine circumstances is faair enough)

walrusgumble

djpbarry wrote: »

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.
I was of the understanding that she applied for asylum as soon as she arrived in Ireland, which would make her an asylum seeker rather than an illegal alien.

how old is that source????? (by the looks of things 2001-2003, Nigeria has changed since then) how cedible is it? it cant hardly be a definite source when it confesses that it is unable to give an exact quota or even a guess as to the numbers of fgm. can you find updated coi? there is no mention of fgm in amnesty's recent human rights report.


The UK Home Office Operation Guidelines for Nigeria for Winter 2007 (look newer coi) provides the following
Treatment. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural tradition that is widely practised in Nigeria. The Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) have estimated the FGM rate at approximately 19 percent among the nation’s female population, and the incidence has declined steadily in the past 15 years. While practised in all parts of the country, FGM is reportedly much more common in the southern part of the country, where prevalence rates for women aged 15-49 reportedly reach almost 60 percent. The NDHS survey found that women from northern states are less likely to undergo the severe type of FGM known as infibulation and that the age at which women and girls were subjected to the practise varied from the first week of life until after a woman delivers her first child; however, three-quarters of the survey respondents who had undergone FGM had the procedure before their first birthday.36
3.10.3 Sufficiency of protection. The Nigerian constitution outlaws inhumane treatment but also provides for citizens to practise their traditional beliefs. The Federal Government publicly opposes the practise of FGM but there are at present no federal laws banning FGM throughout the country. In 2006, however, the Ministry of Health, women’s groups, and many NGOs sponsored public awareness projects to educate communities about the health hazards of FGM. Some states (Bayelsa, Edo, Ogun, Cross River, Osun, and Rivers States) have enacted legislation at state level banning the practise of FGM and many other states are in the process of doing so. However, in spite of these laws and campaigns the custom of FGM continues. In its National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), which was launched in May 2004 the Federal Government stated its intention to intensify its campaign for the eradication of harmful traditional practises such as FGM.37
3.10.4 In states where FGM is prohibited in law, a female seeking to avoid FGM in spite of pressure from her family to do otherwise has the opportunity to make a complaint to the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) or the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). However, in practise very few such complaints are made to those bodies. The matter is usually dealt with within the family and on occasion traditional leaders might also be asked to intervene. However, the ‘traditional attitude’ of a police officer or a village council would normally determine their level of concern and intervention. Cultural attitudes would still be prevalent and some victims would probably never have the courage to take their case to court. It has been reported that most women therefore resort to relocating to another location if they do not wish to undergo FGM.38 Furthermore, there are between 10 and 15 NGOs operating throughout Nigeria who are exclusively devoted to support women including those escaping FGM.39
3.10.5 Internal relocation. The Nigerian constitution provides for the right to travel within the country and the Federal Government generally respects this right in practise. Although law enforcement agencies regularly use roadblocks and checkpoints to search for criminals, there are no reports that government officials restrict movements of individuals
Internal relocation to escape any ill-treatment from non-state agents is almost always an option. As would be expected, some individuals may encounter a normal level of lack of acceptance by others in the new environment as well as lack of accommodation, land etc, and the situation would be considerably easier if the individual concerned has family or other ties in the new location.41 In the absence of exceptional circumstances it would nevertheless not be unduly harsh for any individual, whether or not they have family or
other ties in any new location, to internally relocate to escape this threat.
3.10.7 Conclusion. Whilst protection and/or assistance is available from governmental and non-governmental sources, this is limited. Those who are unable or, owing to fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities, can safely relocate to another part of Nigeria where the family members who are pressurising them to undergo FGM would be unlikely to be able to trace them. Women in that situation would if they choose to do so, also be able to seek assistance from women’s NGOs in the new location. The grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection is unlikely therefore to be appropriate and such claims should be certified as clearly unfounded

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

FGM is very common in Nigeria - it is thought that over 50% of all Nigerian women have been subjected to FGM (source). The practice is relatively independent of religion.

Just checked that source. Seems like her story has a lot more truth than some have insinuated.

As it seems to me that her children are in grave danger of FGM, then they should be allowed to stay. To send them back would be in my mind inhumane.

Also concerning UK govs asylum guide lines, the following article from today Independent is very interesting:

Asylum: the peers' revolt

While it not directly about Nigeria, but about Iran I think it put a dent in the UK govs asylum credentials.

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

work permits and green cards are extremely difficult to obtain. since nigeria is a visa required country, and the fact that many come here, it may be difficult to obtain a vistor visa etc

Whether or not it's difficult isn't relevant....if it's required, it's required.

1) Did she try to get one ?
2) If so, was it refused ?
3) If it was refused, was it refused for a reason, and is that reason valid ?

Unlike others on this thread, I've no problem with people coming in to work or contribute to society, but we need to know what applies in this case. Facilitating a "squatters' rights" scenario (she's here now, so we can't deport her) doesn't work.

If any, or all of the above 3 questions apply, then by all means support her or allow an appeal. But otherwise she took a chance and it's not really our problem.

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

If you jump a queue and get away with it, you'll just encourage others to do the same, but if you join the queue and are treated fairly, then there's no argument against you.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whether or not it's difficult isn't relevant....if it's required, it's required.

1) Did she try to get one ?
2) If so, was it refused ?
3) If it was refused, was it refused for a reason, and is that reason valid ?

Unlike others on this thread, I've no problem with people coming in to work or contribute to society, but we need to know what applies in this case. Facilitating a "squatters' rights" scenario (she's here now, so we can't deport her) doesn't work.

If any, or all of the above 3 questions apply, then by all means support her or allow an appeal. But otherwise she took a chance and it's not really our problem.

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

If you jump a queue and get away with it, you'll just encourage others to do the same, but if you join the queue and are treated fairly, then there's no argument against you.

i agree with the post before you as to uk home office credibility, but i would recommend that ye in doubt would look at the us dept and others like canada and swedish (most liberal) these tend to be rehased by the home office.


to be honest, any chance of speaking a little more clearer, the eddie o'sullivan school of talk is kind of going over my head tbh. from what i can make out, i would agree with you. Just to clarify, people here are sayign that the court accept her story? grand, that a huge fence jumped. but, the court can only decide on how the minister's decision was made and if relevant, did they properly consider international instruments such as ECHR and ICCP.

the minister's point will be that she can easily seek protection and relocate eleswhere against what was probably problems with her family.

bonkey

speedboatchase wrote: »

I think this case should be dealt with rationally.

I always wince when I see this in a thread title / opening post.

Its almost a guarantee that the OP is saying that their opinion is rational, and everything else is not.

The woman entered the country illegally and is an illegal immigrant.

The laws regarding asylum do not take into account how one entered the country where asylum is being sought. Indeed, I'd go further and say that they cannot sensibly do otherwise, as many asylum seekers would - by nature of the very reasons they are seeking refuge - not have the proper documentation.

The OP wants us to deal with this rationally....so lets start by accepting that "illegal entry" is not, never has been, and should never be a precursor to "the right to seek asylum". So all of these comments about her having entered the country illegally, and her being an illegal immigrant, and all the rest of it...lets leave them aside, because htey have no place in the rational approach to this problem that the OP wanted.

And of course the news that she would be allowed stay would be international and show the world that we're a soft touch when it comes to illegal immigration,

The news that she would be allowed to stay would send the message that Ireland takes its asylum responsibilities seriously, and does not cast out those who genuinely merit asylum on grounds that have nothing to do with asylum, such as claims of being an illegal immigrant.

What's everyone elses thoughts? I'm glad this is making people face up to the horrors of female genitial mutilation but that is, I repeat NOT, a product of the West and our values. It is Nigerias cross to bear and under no circumstances should our values and ideals be compromised or vilified over whatever decision is finally met IMO

My thoughts are that you should come straight out and say that you reject the notion of asylum entirely, given that by definition the problems that refugees seek are always some other nation's cross to bear.

The genocide in Darfur...a tragedy, but its the Sudan's cross to bear, right?
The Tibetans being oppressed by the Chinese....another tragedy, but again, not our problem...let the Tibetans and the Chinese deal with their own problems, right?
The women being mutliated by FGM? Again...horrific, but its not like we're doing it, so we don't have to lift a finger.

This is the reasoning the OP wants us to accept as being "rational" - that because we are neither the oppressor nor the oppressed, its not our problem.

If Ireland bordered a nation like the Sudan, would the OP be telling us to throw the refugees back over the border to Darfur? If we neighbouredAfghanistan or Iraq, could we kick the million-plus refugees back into the warzones? After all, its "a cross to bear" for those war-torn nations, not their neighbours.

I'm sure, of course, that the OP will come back, outraged that I could misconstrue their position so willfully, and will make an empassioned plea that of course they're not rejecting the notion of asylum.

They're just rejecting the notion of asylum in Ireland because we're lucky enough to be far-enough removed that we can pick someone between us and wherever and insist that they should bear the cross because we don't want to.

And thats what it ultimately boils down to, isn't it. This "rational" argument that says we should send girld home to be mutilated is not that we want them mutilated...we just don't want to pay for their salvation....we want someone else to.

Where do we draw the line? At what point is the OP willing to say that someone's life is worth saving, rather than deciding its "not our cross to bear" because we're not the ones actually comitting the atrocities?

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Coming in the back door doesn't give you an amnesty against being sent back out it, does it ?

It doesn't give you amnesty, no more than it requires without exception that you be thrown back out.