Deported student to return

ArthurDent

On 10 o'clock news. Minister McDowell has reversed his decision on the Nigerian leaving cert student and he is to be allowed sit his exams.

I think this is the humane decision and welcome it.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/03/24/story195089.html

aodh_rua

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

Deported student gets six month reprieve
24/03/2005 - 09:59:40

The deported Leaving Cert student Olunkunle Eluhanla is to be allowed to return for six months.

He will be given a six-month visa after the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell admitted he was wrong to leave the deportation go ahead.

Mr Eluhanla was among 35 Nigerians recently deported to Lagos on a specially-chartered flight following the rejection of their asylum applications.

aodh_rua

I see another thread opened after I started posting this one. Mods - feel free to delete or merge.

lad12

Yeah he shouldn't be allowed to return once the decision was made..Life's tough..So deal with it..

Threads merged

Well theres a common sense decision if ever I saw one.
As regards whether this will open the floodgates, he's been given a 6 month study visa, so I reckon that means that any other similar visa's will be given on a case by case basis as per the usual routine.
I'd reckon as well that the cure for this would be to speed up the asylum application process-It shouldnt take as long as it does to adjudge these and one swift appeal prcess would be enough imho.

Why do I have my doubts...

Villain

I can't understand why it is still taking so long to get these applications accessed, surely the government shoudl be looking to have a turn around time of a few months maximum. I don't have any issue with people been deported if their application is not successfull but deporting people after been here for several years and becomming part of the community is just crazy.

Boggle

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?

Maybe its the system that is flawed and needs to be re-examined if this case soes not meet Asylum criteria....

pickarooney

aodh_rua wrote:

The confusion and cost to bring him back is not doing the system any favours.

Who was paying for his studies while he was here? Surely that would be a bigger waste of time and money if it were to just deport him at the end.

F Fiesta

A sad, sad day for the country.




When will the right people be put in power? That show strong leadership skills, care about our own people and is not influenced by a mere 200 students?


Oh the shame.

A Dub in Glasgo

A good day for the country and a good decision by McDowell

bonkey

aodh_rua wrote:

is the Minister's decision likely to open the floodgates for other 'mercy' cases?

I doubt it. There is no legal requirement to allow the kid to stay...he is simply being granted a visa to do so. The government can choose to grant visas to whomsoever it wishes, so I don't see this setting a worrisome precedent (although I suspect some recently-departed posters amongst others would disagree).

I find it somewhat amusing to note your choice of words, however. What is asylum itself but a granting of mercy? If we are to, on occasion, decide to be more merciful than the minimum that our own laws require....is that such a bad thing?

There is nothing in the article as to whether or not the government are going to pay for his return (which I suspect they probably will), or whether or not he will be entitled to any government monies whilst he is here. All that is in both statements (unless I'm missing something) is that he will be allowed to return, and will be allowed to sit his exams.

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.

So, when you've taken a wrong turn, you continue down the wrong road rather than admit you've gone wrong?

The Minister has said that he made a mistake. Whether or not thats just a convenient cover for a more complex explanation or not, its the only explanation we have right now...and I'd rather see a Minister admit his mistakes and stand by what he believes is right rather than have him stand by something he believes is wrong.

jc

GuanYin

pickarooney wrote:

Who was paying for his studies while he was here? Surely that would be a bigger waste of time and money if it were to just deport him at the end.

Well thats the interesting thing. On a purely economic basis, letting him sit the LC was the correct thing to do. Why waste two years of money educating someone and then send them off with no product? I had to laugh as I've heard a couple of people argue for his deportation (including McDowell) who also take strong libe views against college dropout rates.

In the end, the humane and decent thing was done and I hope this paves the way for a better review system to stop such stupidity occuring again. I still would have preferred had the Govt held up its hands and apologised, instead of acting like it begrudgingly relented.

They still have to consider how they disrupted this schools preparations for the LC.

But all in all, given the situation, right choice made.

sleepwalker

well first off well done to his fellow students, his teachers and anybody else who let their voice be heard and well done to mcdowell a politican who is actually doing his job very well and yet is constantly criticized.

When will the right people be put in power? That show strong leadership skills, care about our own people and is not influenced by a mere 200 students?

how does this decision illustrate that the minister for justice not care for what you call "our own people" ? did he deport some irish people aswell or something ?

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

A sad, sad day for the country.




When will the right people be put in power? That show strong leadership skills, care about our own people and is not influenced by a mere 200 students?


Oh the shame.

Give it a rest. Can you explain exactly why this is a sad day for the country?

Exactly what negative effect do you believe this will make to our country, socially, economically or legislatively?

I'll agree that the leadership is poor, they should never have deported him in the first place, and should have rectified the matter immediately, but the right descision was made.

Come on, less vague rubbish and more argument please.

landser

Appaling decision. I feel sorry for the guy in question. The process is too slow. But, his application was turned down, and that's that, whether he's been here two months or two years is not relevant.

The asylum process has to be speeded up and a rational debate re immigration entered into (viz. see Myers article in yesterday's I.T.)

I'm severely disappointed by the Govt's u-turn on this... 300 protest, 3.7m do not...

aodh_rua

Even though I'd like to think that the decision was based on compassion, I can't escape my cynicism and so this smacks to me of political opportunism. It gives McDowell a chance to show he has a heart, and while the young man gets to come back and sit his leaving cert, he's still facing deportation in a couple of months. Whatever pressure the ordinary student faces, he's got much more to worry about than simply getting points. This decision makes a mockery of the system, which will no doubt upset others who are waiting on decisions or worse still give them false hope. It will cost the taxpayer to get him back only to spend more re-deporting him. And who benefits - probably the Minister in the short-term, and in the long run, not Olunkunle Eluhanla.

pickarooney

landser wrote:

Appaling decision. I feel sorry for the guy in question. The process is too slow. But, his application was turned down, and that's that, whether he's been here two months or two years is not relevant.

Ach come on, that's a lot like saying if a man is condemned to life imprisonment and later proof comes out that he's innocent he should still serve the sentence because it was the original decision of the court.

bonkey

landser wrote:

The process is too slow. But, his application was turned down, and that's that, whether he's been here two months or two years is not relevant.

Why is it not relevant? Because his asylum application was refused, we have no obligation to consider what will result directly as a result of our inabaility to deal with his request in a timely fashion?

The asylum process has to be speeded up and a rational debate re immigration entered into

Both are required, but given the apparent inability of so many people to clearly distinguish between the two groups, I would hate to see any sort of "combined" debate or action on the subjects.

They are entirely seperate issues, other than that they both result in foreigners being allowed inside our borders for more than a holiday.

I'm severely disappointed by the Govt's u-turn on this... 300 protest, 3.7m do not...

So you have access to a statement from the minister where he explains that it was the small protest which changed his mind?

And why are you blurring the distinction between support and merely not voicing disapproval?

jc

aodh_rua

pickarooney wrote:

Ach come on, that's a lot like saying if a man is condemned to life imprisonment and later proof comes out that he's innocent he should still serve the sentence because it was the original decision of the court.

Not sure that logic holds - he is still 'guilty', but his sentence has been delayed so he can complete his studies. That's similar to the Annabel's case where one of the guilty parties was allowed to sit his finals before starting his sentence. I don't think the Minister said the deportation was wrong, he said that he didn't think it needed to be carried out with such immediacy.

GuanYin

aodh_rua wrote:

Not sure that logic holds - he is still 'guilty', but his sentence has been delayed so he can complete his studies. That's similar to the Annabel's case where one of the guilty parties was allowed to sit his finals before starting his sentence. I don't think the Minister said the deportation was wrong, he said that he didn't think it needed to be carried out with such immediacy.

And thats the compassionate thing to do. Let him back BECAUSe they made a mistake in deporting him immediately.

As far as your point regarding 3.7 million not protesting. I didn't protest, but I still support letting him back in. Do you think that its REALLY 301 vs 3,699,999?

Can you offer any proof that these are the figures for and against the deportation?

landser

Why is it not relevant? Because his asylum application was refused, we have no obligation to consider what will result directly as a result of our inabaility to deal with his request in a timely fashion?

So, do you suggest that we apply some sort of squatter's rights to the process? You ask me why is it not relevant, i ask you why is it? The fact that he was here for two years before deportation is unfortunate, but it does not change his status as a bogus asylum seeker. As for waht will result, presumably, nothing different than if he was deprted 18 minths ago... if he was in peril then he'll be in peril now

Both are required, but given the apparent inability of so many people to clearly distinguish between the two groups, I would hate to see any sort of "combined" debate or action on the subjects.

They are entirely seperate issues, other than that they both result in foreigners being allowed inside our borders for more than a holiday.

I know


So you have access to a statement from the minister where he explains that it was the small protest which changed his mind?

Troll


And why are you blurring the distinction between support and merely not voicing disapproval?

the use of the double negative here has thrown me... what were you trying to say?

GuanYin

landser wrote:

So, do you suggest that we apply some sort of squatter's rights to the process? You ask me why is it not relevant, i ask you why is it? The fact that he was here for two years before deportation is unfortunate, but it does not change his status as a bogus asylum seeker. As for waht will result, presumably, nothing different than if he was deprted 18 minths ago... if he was in peril then he'll be in peril now

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?

Troll

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.

the use of the double negative here has thrown me... what were you trying to say?

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

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?

F Fiesta

Exactly what negative effect do you believe this will make to our country, socially, economically or legislatively?

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.

Moriarty

F Fiesta wrote:

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

.. any more than one random person posting on an internet forum.

D'Peoples Voice

landser wrote:

Appaling decision. I feel sorry for the guy in question. The process is too slow. But, his application was turned down, and that's that, whether he's been here two months or two years is not relevant.

The asylum process has to be speeded up and a rational debate re immigration entered into (viz. see Myers article in yesterday's I.T.)

I'm severely disappointed by the Govt's u-turn on this... 300 protest, 3.7m do not...

IMHO, from what I've heard of the case,
the facts that he supplied to not one but both the refugeee tribunal were in dispute, I hear. I interpret this to mean he LIED about certain details.

Then I hear he absconded in early february when he was told he had to present himself, he only presented himself in mid-March.

"Feel sorry for the guy" - it would seem he lied in his tribunal,
His own mother dosen't feel sorry for him, she deserted him, she could have brought him with her to the US.

From what I heard, when the gardai/immigration officials asked him if he wanted to go home to change out of his uniform, he declined, smart kid, it made the headlines that a refugee in his unifrom was being sent home.

when the imigration officials asked him if he wanted details of their counterparts in nigeria when he got off the place in Nigeria, he declined.

Then he said he was mugged, yet a penniless guy with no family managed to make it to a internet cafe to send an email to friends in Ireland to give details of his mugging. Of course we'd believe him, it's not as if he lied b4 in the tribunals.
so as for feeling sorry for him....

of course, maybe all of the above is hearsay, but will we ever know

AngelofFire

This is good day for human rights.

gandalf

Well common sense has prevailed. Why bother to give this man an education if you are not prepared to let him sit the exams and get the qualifications.

The people that demonstrated should be commended and I certainly agreed with them. I really dislike people like you F Fiesta who claim to know what the majority want and in future you may want to state that your comments are your own opinion and not decide to become a spokesman for the masses.

The majority of people I talked to including those that have quite un-pc attitudes to foreigners all agreed that deporting this student without allowing him complete his studies was short sighted and hasty. It takes a person with a very mean outlook on life to deny this person the opportunity to complete his studies.

logonapr

Dreadful decision.

Lots of emotion but bottom line is that this is a case where state was supporting this student who was deemed an illegal immigrant entirely.
His dependency on the state is therefore no different to any other immigrant living on social welfare.

If one hold the view that his deportation was wrong then surely it follows that we should be providing this state support to all immigrants and we then simply throw our borders open.

gurramok

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?
.

Would the decision mean that he will be deported again in 6 months or does he have the right to seek work after he sits the exams ?

bonkey

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

of course, maybe all of the above is hearsay, but will we ever know

Well, as far as this discussion is concerned, it is only hearsay, as we've only heard it from you, with no sources other than what you've heard.

So, indeed, its second-hand hearsay.

jc

bonkey

F Fiesta wrote:

Quite simple really. He'll be sent back home in 6 months or so.

Quite probably.

Having done his Leaving Certificate in the mean time. What good is that for the Irish State?

I would imagine the terms "compassion" and "humanitarian" would figure strongly in the answer.

200 students don't speak for the country.

200 students didn't speak for the country. The Minister who's job it is to do so did so.

You're just suggesting that one was the trigger for the other. That doesn't make it so.

jc


jc

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.