6.pm. Rally for Pamela, Naomi & Jemima outside Mountjoy womens prison

by x Sat Jan 14, 2006 14:38

background information at below link.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73392

by Refugee. Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:34

This womans child died from FGM in the early nineties. Why did she not seek asylum then? Why did she wait until ten years later? Why did she not seek asylum in the first safe country she came to? Is it because of the high levels of unemployment in Spain, Portugal and France?why did she choose to go to Ireland? Why did her husband not accompany her?Is it because he has a businness in Nigeria?

Those are all valid questions, they desreve answers.

the use of the asylum/refugee system for economic migration damages the credibility of the system and affects those who are genuine refugees.

by common sense Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:44

surely there is an employer out there willing to apply for a work permit for this lady. That way she could stay in Ireland could she not?

There must be someone from Sligo willing to explore this option?

by Observer Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:52

To Shane,
The nearest safe country this woman would have come to would not have been Ireland but somewhere in Europe. So why didn't she apply there? A refugee is entitled to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Its certain that Ireland would not have been this womans first safe country.

The immigration laws in this country are just right because they allow only genuine asylum seekers to gain asylum. A country has to have immigration laws.

by Observer Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:56

Common sense,
A work permit would not be an option on the table because this woman has been here for a very short length of time and it would not be worth going to all that bother if a person like her is only here temporary.

by subla Sat Jan 14, 2006 15:59

These are the same "caring community" in Sligo which vehemently opposes the provision of halting sites for our indigenous ethnic minority.

by Observer Sat Jan 14, 2006 16:06

That is an issue for the council to decide, the people don't have any say on that. But campaigning to allow every single asylum seeker to be granted leave to remain on in the country is also ridiculous.

by Observer Sat Jan 14, 2006 16:31

"the long dangerous journey to a foreign country alone"

How could Ireland have been the first safe country this woman reached? It was more than likely some country in Europe so why did she not apply for asylum there?

by SH Mon Jan 16, 2006 16:17

People are assuming that Pamela arrived in Ireland by plane. This might not have been the case. People smugglers commonly use a route through Benin and Toga and then to Ireland by ship. Toga and Benin are not safe countries and have a worse record than Nigeria when it comes to FGM. It is the Dublin convention that decides where in Europe an asylum applicant is made. Pamela is not being deported to another EU country under the Dublin Convention she has a deportation order to Nigeria, this would clearly indicate that their was no breach of the Dublin Convention.

As for the delay in Pamela fleeing, I presume it is because she left it until she had no other option. This would have been when her families pressure became unbearable. Women are second class citizens in Nigeria. The WHO extimates that at least 50% of Nigerian woman have had the procedure. Also it is perfectly legal to beat your wife in Nigeria unless you permanently incapicitate her i.e. you hurt so badly that she can't earn a living.

As for our asylum system being fair and accurate, that is a myth along the lines of Santa Claus. It is fiction and people only say it as they believe the listeners are to dumb to notice the truth. The asylum system is chaotic, random, untransparent and completely unfair. The aim is to deport as many people as possible without caring for the human rights of applicants.

by Observer Mon Jan 16, 2006 17:47

I'd imagine that it was very difficult to prove the first safe country she landed in when she arrived in the E.U so the alternative method to this is to send her back to her home country if it is impossible to prove which first safe country she landed in.

"The asylum system is chaotic, random, untransparent and completely unfair".

How ironic!
Since when did you think that our system is the most unfairest in Europe?! Did you ever see Italy's deportation policies? Once an immigrant lands on an Italian enclave like Lamprdausa island, they are flown back to Africa within hours of landing on the island. Here, they are given a chance to appeal if they so wish, and it usually takes up to a couple of months for them to be sent back if they do not meet the criteria. You wanting to rid our immigration system totally its just not going to happen, face it.

by SH Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:07

What utter nonsense you spout. If you cant prove it deport them. That is absolutely ridiculous and shows that your mentality is to deport people rather than analyse their case respecting their human rights. However people arrive in the country, unless the Dublin convention applies then it is our duty under National and International law to process their case.

Your second paragraph is nonsense also. I never suggested that we had the most unfair system in Europe and it is typical of people like yourself to invent quotes from other people to try and suit your argument. We should aspire to having the best asylum system in the world, and not a marginally better one than an appaling system.

by Observer Mon Jan 16, 2006 21:22

Anyone who defends an immigration policy is labelled a racist. The public have coped onto this and don't fall for it anymore. People who go through the immigration process and fail, must have failed for a reason and i doubt they would be harressed and intimidated by the authorities. What is the alternative, let everyone in, have no system whatsoever?? You wan't to stop every single deportation even when those who are being deported do not meet the criteria for asylum.
If an asylum seeker lands in a first safe country other than Ireland, then its the Government's duty to see that that person be sent back to that first safe country so as he/she can apply there. Wanting to abolish our immigration laws or whatever you classify it as is just never going to happen. Reality check!

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:37

Again with the first safe country. This is an absolute red herring. If the Dublin Convention had applied she would have been deported under that. She hasn't and yet you keep on trying to imply that she is, this is a lie and an attempt by you to cloud the debate. Our asylum system is a sham, an utter joke. It does not work. Anyone who defends our immigration policy is an idiot. As for your "doubt" about harrasment, any person who reads the papers or talks to immigrants will be able to tell you of the harrasment. Your "disbelief" is hard to believe, only an utter fool would pretend to be so blind to the injustices that are perpetrated in our name. One alternative to the asylum sham we have is to place it under a body such as the Human Rights Commission who will approach it from a human rights basis and not from the purposes of electoral gain.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 13:16

"One alternative to the asylum sham we have is to place it under a body such as the Human Rights Commission who will approach it from a human rights basis and not from the purposes of electoral gain."

Do you even know why the immigration laws were recently changed? They were changed to clear the backlog in asylum applications which were a staggering 12,000 applications in the early 2000s. Placing the system under the Human Rights Commission means that the backlog in asylum applications would only re-appear and this is the kind of thing we've seen before the new immigration laws were passed which saw giving the Green light to every single asylum seeker. Think logical!
The current system thoroughly investigates an asylum seekers claims under irish and international law, unlike the previous system and those who meet the criteria for asylum are granted asylum. Those who don't, aren't- Thats the way it is and thats the way its going to be whether you think or wish otherwise. Its not like no asylum seeker gains asylum in this country every year. There is quite a high recognition rate in this country in contrast to other EU countries.

Seeking to bin our immigration laws completly is ridiculous, unbalanced and completly out of touch. You are even against the basic where an asylum seeker goes through the due process and is proven not to meet the criteria where he/she is then sent back. A balanced policy please!

by Free Thinking Tue Jan 17, 2006 13:38

There appears to be some confusion as to the history of the legal end of Ireland’s obligations relating to Refugees. Ireland ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the status of Refugees in 1956.

To claim that in 1956, there was a contingent of individuals secretly delighting in the prospect of deporting people 50 years on and/or abusing their human rights is absurd.

It is difficult to adjudicate on claims from Countries thousands of miles away, as SH notes. That is why the UNHCR explicitly states that peoples seeking asylum, do so in the first safe country they enter for the practical purpose of determining the legitimacy of the claim.

Safe in this context, means safe from the specific persecution alleged – from the specific agents intending to persecute - and so, should not require a flight across several countries where such protection is already available.

It is perfectly fair to question the credibility and credentials of the many people who adjudicate asylum claims and those that vet their decisions. It is deeply unfair, condescending, discriminatory and racist, not to apply the same criteria to failed asylum applicants and be equally as objective.

At the risk of stating the obvious, but for the sake of those who appear to believe otherwise, our system (as instructed by the UNHCR) cannot "grant" convention refugee status to anyone who is not a convention refugee, regardless of media attention.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 14:46

Yet again Observer you try to cloud the debate with blatant untruths. Our immigration laws were changed because they were found to be illegal by our courts, not because of a backlog as you attempt to claim. Our new Immigration Act has been attacked by amnesty international in their annual report of human rights in countries across the globe. As for your "logical" comment, how amusing coming from a person who can't stick to the truth. You quite clearly haven't an iota of what the change was to our laws. The determing process for asylum claims come under our Refugee Act 1996, which hasn't been changed since, despite your claims that it has. Also it is false to say that we have the highest acceptance rate, we do not it is nonsense what you are saying. Why don't you provide us all a link to the fantasy land where you live and pull this "facts" from.

You are the one who is completely out of touch. You are the one that has attempted to cloud this debate with falsities, you are the one that clearly hasn't a breeze about our shambles of an asylum system. It is unjust, unfair, decisions are made completely randomly and due process is not had with the asylum applicants. There are hundreds of cases out there like Pamela who deserve refugee status and only idiots with their head in the sand like observer try to pretend that the system is working fine. It is an utterly farcical system. Get your head out of the sand observer and try to keep to the truth.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 14:55

Observer if the Dublin convention had applied the dept. of justice would have had her deported under those regulations. They have not as it does not apply. You are still attempting to cloud the issue with blatant untruths. This has been mentioned to you before and yet you still attempt to use it to justify a blatantly unjust deportation order.

Your lack of knowledge of both international and national asylum laws is breathtaking, yet you still attemp to fabricate untruths and cloud the debate. You are neither logical or truthful. A very deviant character you are indeed.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:10

"Our immigration laws were changed because they were found to be illegal by our courts, not because of a backlog as you attempt to claim".

The backlog was found to exist, if you claim it didn't, then read on! Did you not know that there were 12,000 asylum application backlogs before the new immigration bills were introduced as well as those to tackle the backlog? The link provides actual proof of the backlog. Even if you say there was no backlog at all!

"There are hundreds of cases out there like Pamela who deserve refugee status".

It has confirmed what I was thinking- your organisation really want's every asylum seeker to be allowed in, including those who do not meet the basic asylum seeking requirements. How ironic!
This person had without doubt landed in another E.U country as a first 'safe' country before she landed in Ireland. She did not apply for asylum there even though the UN refugee policy allows asylum seekers to look for asylum in the first 'safe' country they land in. In this womans case, that first safe country wasn't Ireland so therefore, she does not meet the requirements for asylum status in this country. Yet you just wan't her to be given asylum anyway!

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:15

"Observer if the Dublin convention had applied the dept. of justice would have had her deported under those regulations".

In some cases where it is impossible to discover which first 'safe' country an asylum seeker landed in first as this is the case, then these particular asylum seekers are sent back to their host (home) country should the officials not be able to find out which country this first 'safe' country was. This is also due to a lack of cooperation on behalf of the asylum seeker.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:20

You are an utter idiot. Our laws were not changed because of the backlog, yes it did exist but that was not why our immigration laws were changed. You still claim that it was and you are an utter liar because of it.

The system is an absolute sham. All the evidence supports the notion that the system is a sham. All you have done is lie in an attempt to prove that it is not shambolic, you have failed and exposed yourself for being the deviant person that you are.

You still lie about the Dublin convention. You continue to lie and you ahould be ashamed about it. The Dublin Convention does not apply in Pamela's case and claims by Observer that they do are an absolute lie. The very basis of his argument is nothing but an absolute lie.

by Free Thinking Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:26

"It is deeply unfair, condescending, discriminatory and racist, not to apply the same criteria to failed asylum applicants and be equally as objective."

If I may be allowed clarify.

An asylum application is adjudicated on by UNHCR trained officials. The decisions are referred to senior officials. In the case of rejection. A negative decision can be appealed. Following that, a claim can find its way to the courts where it will be examined for legal deficiencies. Should that be case, the claim may be re-examined from the start and so on.

A rejected claim has plenty of people accountable for their actions having their input scrutinised all the way to the Supreme court.

To cast doubt on the actions of all the individuals involved and suggest a conspiracy is absurd.

What I see here from a particularly zealous poster is an attempt to claim that this is the case, whilst offering no case for the rejected asylum seeker other than their unvarnished word.

My point is that a similar level of accountability is not expected from the rejected applicant that this poster requires from others. There appears to be a unthinking assumption that the claim was genuine, but there is not even a miminimum attempt to prove it, preferring to attack the individuals that considered the claim rather than dare think the claimant failed to satisfy the criteria required for refugee status or submitted a fabricated claim.

In other words the failed claimant is accorded elevated treatment with an inexplicable presumption of honesty and integrity, denied those who process claims. This is IMHO discriminatory and in this case, racism.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:32

"You are an utter idiot. Our laws were not changed because of the backlog, yes it did exist but that was not why our immigration laws were changed. You still claim that it was and you are an utter liar because of it."

So the backlog did exist now?! I never said that the laws were changed for this single reason. Just read my previous comments. At no stage, did I indicate that this was the one single reason why they were changed. But it was one of the many reasons why they were changed. Simply to campaign for no asylum policy whatsoever is ridiculous, unbalanced and is not realistic. People have seen this kind of attitude before and have coped on to it.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:36

Pamela has provided ample case that her claims are true. She has provided a death certificate and was backed up by a priest in Nigeria. This has gotten widespread coverage. As for the appeals process, the prime time last year showed that the appeal process is a sham. I have posted about it repeatedly on this website and anyone who discusses the issue with a solicitor or barrister will have my claims backed up.

As for the UNHCR. I provided details of what training thay gave last year on a previous thread. The decisons on asylum cases are not verified by the UNHCR. It is the Minister of Justice and him alone that decides on deportations. As for "reverse racism" being displayed, that is a ridiculous notion and one that displays breathtaking ignorance of the unaccountability and lack of transparency of the system. A judicial review is not about the accountability of the people making the decisions and claims otherwise are false.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:39

"Do you even know why the immigration laws were recently changed? They were changed to clear the backlog in asylum applications"

This is your quote not mine. And yet now you try and deny it. What an absolute liar you are. Our immigration laws were changed because they were found to be illegal by our courts, they were not changed because of anything else.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:42

"As for "reverse racism" being displayed, that is a ridiculous notion and one that displays breathtaking ignorance of the unaccountability and lack of transparency of the system"

Anyone who defends an immigration policy is labelled a racist. People who go through the immigration process and fail, must have failed for a reason. What is the alternative, let everyone in, have no system whatsoever? If people come to claim asylum, its only fair that they are checked as to whether this claim is true, and the system in Ireland does actually investigate this claim thoroughly. Maybe you think otherwise. I think that this immigration system we have is good because it allows genuine asylum seekers to gain asylum.

by Free Thinking Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:44

SH, Would you explain again (if you have not done so already), why no part or State within Nigeria could accomodate this individual.

Also, please explain the timing, how this individual angaged traffickers, how much she paid and specifically what they promised in return.

Finally, how she got here and if any of the countries involved are signatories of the 1951 Convention.

Incidentally, please explain how it is helping this individual to have her name openly published in internationally accessible media.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:46

We cannot let everyone in. Everyone other country is the same. Border controls are neccessary in every country. You have to draw the line somewhere..

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:50

If every asylum seeker used the same reason which quite a few do in many instances, then it would seem that the claim is actually false. You would be campaigning for permanent stay for all asylum seekers even if some were proven not to be genuine asylum seekers. That is simply not a policy.

How would you deal with non genuine asylum seekers?

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:52

Where is the apologies for you lying observer. Nobody here has called you a racist and it is pathetic of you to imply that they have. Genuine refugee's are being turned down and deported. That is why we need to remove the asylum process completely from the hands of politicians and put it under the authority of a body such as the Human Rights Commission where human rights will be the focus of the system instead of the "deport as many as possible" approach that we currently have.

If the asylum system was constructed in a fair and efficient manner than all that would be left to argue about would be the pros/cons of an open door policy and not one of debating over the unfairness of the system.

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:56

According to the UNHCR Ireland has one of the fairest asylum systems in Europe and the level of transparency and co operation from Department officals is unique.

Then again SH maybe the United Nations High Commission for Refugees are lying too?

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 15:58

Ok, so you wan't to completly take the current system out of the politicians hands and allow no control on the way our asylum system is carried out whatsoever? Thats not going to happen. This is the kind of thing we've seen in the past and the 'Human Rights' of every asylum seeker are protected in the current system. Since when did asylum seekers here not have rights like accommodation, allowance, etc?

by Free Thinking Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:00

SH, is there even the remotest chance of you providing evidence of a refugee being deported?

By evidence, I mean proof that the persecution alleged to be the cause of flight actually occured and the name of the victim.

Just one name and the details will do.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:00

There has to be a logical asylum system. Not one where its been abused by asylum seekers. Deportations are carried out by this Government for failed asylum seekers and those who did not meet the criteria.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:05

If this woman did not meet the criteria for asylum then she has to be sent back to either the first 'safe' country she landed in or else back to Nigeria if that first safe country was unprovable. That is the reality regardless what you believe otherwise.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:05

There is a high chance that she would have been found in any part of Nigeria by her In laws and it is unfair to suggest that Pamela and her children should have to live in fear for the rest of their lives in Nigeria rather than escape to Ireland where they will be safe. Everyone should be entitled to live free from fear.

As for smuggling details, human smuggling is illegal and if you are looking for details of it I would be unwilling and unable to provide it.

It is a red herring about signatories to the convention. Take a look at the signatories Sudan springs to mind immediately. Signing the convention does not mean that you are a safe country.

Publicising Pamela's case helps greatly. McDowell likes to operate away from the prying eyes of the public and the media. Those cases which are highlighted in the media have a far far greater chance of success than those that don't.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:17

"and it is unfair to suggest that Pamela and her children should have to live in fear for the rest of their lives in Nigeria rather than escape to Ireland where they will be safe".

Could you prove that they are actually in fear of their lives please? Not just more comments, some proof. Also, they are entitled to apply for asylum in the first 'safe' country they land in. Ireland would not have been that first 'safe' country they landed in.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:18

Free thinker, persecution of those deported has been covered in other threads. You can search for them there. Prime time also went to Nigeria to interview deportee's. They were hiding in Lagos from there families. Persecution does happen to those deported. But you can look up further details on the previous threads.

Observer you are still posting nonsense, why dont you apologise for lying?

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:27

Well, I take it that you are unable to provide open proof that that they are actually in fear of their lives. I won't bother trying to get any more answers out of you for that one because there simply isn't any.

If this woman did not meet the criteria for asylum then theres a reason for it. If a person goes through the due process, then their case is actually investigated. If they are found to be non-genuine asylum seekers, then they are sent back.

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:28

a response to everything except the one pertinent question.

Sh, do you disagree with UNHCR analysis of Irelands asylum system and how it works as expounded in last weeks Irish Times?

Is the UNHCR also lying?

since you are so keen to respond to others why not respond to this.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:30

Some people believe that no asylum policy whatsoever is the way forward. What next?! Every person goes through the official procedure and everyone is treated the same. I just can't get over the idea of wanting to wipe away our immigration laws completly.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:35

Our recognition rate for asylum seekers as an EU country is quite high. The asylum system we have is logical. It allows genuine asylum seekers to gain asylum. You can't have a 'no policy' for all asylum seekers.

by P.K Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:38

To come to this country unde false pretences( Dept of Jutice decision) and then when found out by the government to go "on the run" to evade the execution of the law and to then finally turn the whole thing into a race issue is despicable. This country is better off without people who have such a blatant disregard for the law. Especially the law of the society in which she went to great lenghts to seek asylum, If she was as disrespectful to the law in Nigeria it is no wonder she had to leave. Send her and her children home to her husband in Lagos.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:39

Where is the apology for lying observer? You still are continuing to lie. Ireland does not have a high recognition rate compare to other EU countries, that is another lie. As for the proof, Pamela provided ample proof, including a death certificate for her first born daughter and letters from a priest in Nigeria backing her up. Why don't you give up the ghost observer, you have been exposed as being a liar, go toddle of to a website that might believe your lives. People here are already well aware of you untruthfullness.

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:43

Oh and since when have we taken what any priest says to be the truth?/

UNHCR say we have one of the fairest systems in Europe and our Departmental level of cooperation is unique.......go on call me a liar!

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:47

Say what you wan't to, but Ireland does have a high recognition rate. If the asylum policy were to be reversed, as you are wishing, then there would be calls for it be be reinstated. The facts are that if an asylum seeker goes through the official process and fails, its not like they were turned down for no reason whatsoever. Wishing 'no policy' is never going to happen. Reality time!

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:50

as an imcer I object to your personal abuse toward other posters to this thread. Perhaps reading the guidelines might be an idea. Oh, yes, sure you don't believe in having guidelines. Your attitude to the posting guidelines are a reflection to your attitude to having guidelines on asylum seekers, yeah we will havee some but lets ignore them when it suits us.

Now am I lying about the UNHCR who says we have one of the fairest asylum/refugee systems in Europe.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:50

The UNHCR never said that. It was an outgoing UNHCR rep in Dublin who made the claim. The UNHCR never did. As for access, that does not make the system fair as the UNHCR does not have any bearing on decisions. If you read what she said she "called on the Government to give asylum-seekers the right to work after six months, suggested an increase in the number of refugees who can resettle here and expressed concern about aspects of the appeal system for asylum applicants." Also she states "UNHCR has called on the Department of Justice to employ full-time human rights lawyers to hear asylum appeals instead of the current part-time system, but its proposals have not been accepted." and "She also called on the Government to embrace a broader definition of who qualifies as a refugee".

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:55

"to give asylum-seekers the right to work after six months".

The fact is that many non-genuine asylum seekers are not here any longer than 6 months. So, it would not be worth going to all the trouble to organize work for an asylum seeker if he/she is here for such a short period of time.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:56

It is an absolute fallacy what you are saying. Provide these links to back up your utterly incorrect statements please? Where did you find the statistics to back up your false recognition rate claims?

And where is your apology for such flagrant lies?

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 16:58

"but its proposals have not been accepted"

The Human Rights of every asylum seeker are respected under the current system. Asylum seekers are by Irish and international law entitled to appeal their decision, be given medical treatment, be given accommodation, be given allowance etc. The Human Rights are well respected under the current system otherwise it would not have been adopted.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:01

Amnesty international have condemned our immigration act as a violation of international human rights laws and again you continue to spout absolute nonsense.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:02

Denmark 4.9%; Ireland 6.2%; Spain 2.6%; Norway 3.6%; Germany 3.3%; UK 3%.

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:02

That is who said it.She has been in post for the last five years Obviously the incoming rep wouldn't be in a position to express such an opinion

She gave her opinion on the fairness of the system "it is among the fairest in Europe" yet you claim it is unfair.

She also said that the access granted to her by government departments and agencies in Ireland was unique in Europe., yet you criticise the Dept for secrecy.

As for granted successful asylum seekers the right to work I have no problem with that and agree that should be the case from day one.

She has not called for a review of this particular case!

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:06

Just as campaigning to abolish every single law we have on immigration is nonsense. If the Government immigration laws were in your book 'unfair' then why do you wan't to have no asylum system in place whatsoever??

by moderate Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:09

Do people like SH accept the need for ANY system of control over who comes into the country? And if so, what ought to be the criteria. That is the real issue otherwise you just get a lot of shouting between extremes who beleive that we ought to have no immigration/asylum, and those who favour completely open borders. Neither are sustainable outside of some kind of ultra right or ultra left fantasy.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:16

Observer please provide links to your claims, your statistics are wrong completely and if you provide the proper links people will be able to see that the statistics you provided are incomplete. Once again you expose yourself for knowing nothing.

As for . comparing something to other unfair systems is not the same as saying that it is fair. That should be pretty obvious to anybody.

Having access to government departments is a red herring it does not imply fairness in a case, nor does it say what the access is about. It is beyond reproach that the asylum system in Ireland lacks transaprency, the decisions are not published. Also the UNHCR does not comment on individual cases and they never hav.e

And observer at this stage you have proved yourself to be an absolute joke. Go do some research and this time try not to lie. And we are still waiting for an apology for your lies.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:18

The existing system we have in place recognizes the rights of asylum seekers to claim asylum. It also regognizes the need to deal with immigration on a wholescale. We don't have an extreme system in place at the moment because our Government have opted for a logical one where this time, an asylum seeker goes through the due process to find out whether or not; they are genuine or meet the criteria for asylum.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:30

The asylum system that should be in place is one that is completely removed from the hands of politicians and is placed under a body such as the Human Rights Commission who would look at asylum from a human rights approach and not one that approaches it from a "deport as many as possible" approach. Also asylum seekers should be allowed to work. This would prevent the usual racist chant of calling asylum seekers spongers. It is entirely hypocritical to call someone a sponger when they are barred from working. FGM should be made grounds for asylum and there are other gender based issues which need to be dealt with. Also if an asylum seeker has been here for a period of years without a decision being made then they should automatically qualify for status. In the UK this currently stands at 4years. In Ireland McDowell has deported people who have been here for 5 years including their children and recently we had the high profile case of Tundi who has been here for 6 years and McDowell tried to deport him before the pressure mounted and he was forced to step back.

Should we get an asylum system that is fair and efficient with a human rights based approach then the debate would be around the pro's and con's of an open border policy. Unfortunately we are far away from having an efficient and fair asylum sysytem

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:32

How about you proving that these people are actually living in fear for their lives? Something you couldn't provide me with previous.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:36

"The asylum system that should be in place is one that is completely removed from the hands of politicians".

I have also told you in one of my previous comments that this is kind of policy we had before the new immigration laws were passed and where there was a backlog in applications to a staggering 12,000. You're just resentful that the current system actually allows only those genuine asylum seekers to be granted asylum.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:39

You are an absolute clown observer. Your figures are utterly, utterly wrong and you are unable to prove them right. All those stats are much higher, including Irelands. You haven't an iota what you are talking about which is why you are refusing to provide any links. Irelands recognition rate is closer to 30% than it is to 6%.

Your comments about the government having a logical system is utterly, utterly farcial. All you are doing is repeating a falsity in a pathetic attempt to try and make it true. You have provided absolutely no proof and have consistently lied on this thread.

As for your proof, I will repeat again for the umpteenth time Pamela provide a death certificate, she was backed up by a local priest in Nigeria. Prime Time went to Nigeria and filmed deportee's. The proof was there.

At this stage, with your consistent lying, your failure to provide any links and your consistent attempt to cloud the debate it is obvious to me that you are nothing but a troll whose aim is to waste my time trying to repsond to your nonsense.

Now again where is our apology for your lies?

by . Tue Jan 17, 2006 17:54

asylum figures:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/


and refusal rates:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/refugee_stats/stats_sept_05.html

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 18:05

Provide your links please observer. The overall rate of acceptace is closer to 30% and is not one of the highest in Europe and also why are you refusing to provide your links?

Also where is the apology for your lies?
You can add this one to your list of lies aswell "I have also told you in one of my previous comments that this is kind of policy we had before the new immigration laws were passed" This is another absolutle lie from you. We have never had such a system. Your stack of lies just keep building and building and building.

As for .

I am saying that Pamela's case clearly met the guidelines for asylum. She provided ample proof and there is no justification in turning her down. Calling FGM a ploy is an ridiculous comment to make. FGM is a brutal procedure and those fleeing it deserve our protection. Calling Nigeria a stable country is utterly ridiculous. Check out amnesty internationals report and the report for the US State department on Nigeria.

Observer you still continue to lie. You have been unable to provide links to back you up, you have refused to apolgise for blatantly lying to us and you have repeatedly wasted my time. You are a deviant character.

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 18:10

"I am saying that Pamela's case clearly met the guidelines for asylum. She provided ample proof and there is no justification in turning her down"

If she had gone through the due process and was regognized not to qualify for asylum then theres obviously a reason for it. I have previously asked you to provide evidence of this "ample proof" but you have refused. So how can there be proof of this when there is none?

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 18:27

Pamela had ample proof. She had a death certificate for her first born girl who bled to death from FGM. Also a priest provided evidence backing her up. I have repeatedly stated this.

Observer your last post is sheer idiocy and makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.

Where is our apology for your constant lying?

Where is the links for your wrong statistics?

by Observer Tue Jan 17, 2006 18:35

"Observer your last post is sheer idiocy and makes absolutley no sense whatsoever."

Everything I say in your book is 'idiocy'! The fact is that if this woman had gone through the due process and failed, then its not like she failed for no reason whatsoever. Theres obviously a reason for it. But you need to admit that all you wan't is just a complete overhaul of our asylum system where there will be no rules whatsoever. The best system there would be in your opinion!

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 18:45

Observer you have a very ironic name considering you have refused to observe anything whatsoever. Pamela has proof of her plight.

I have already said that the asylum system is a sham. I have already said that it should be placed under a body such as the Human Rights Commission. I have already said that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I have repeatedly asked you for your links for your wrong statistics. You have refused to supply them because you don't have them.

I have repeatedly called you a liar as you have consistently and repeatedly lied on this thread. I have also repeatedly asked you for an apology for your lies and you have refused.

You are persistently and repeatedly trolling.

by SH Tue Jan 17, 2006 20:22

Observer you are a troll. The proof is the death certificate she provided from her dead daughter and the priests evidence. That is ample proof and your repeated attempts to deny that that is proof is evidence of a deviant mind. Would you like her to be deported and come back here with two more death certificates for her daugthers. Why you don't you provide proof that she is lying? Because she is not and you are nothing but a troll.

I will repeat again the Dublin Convention did not apply in Pamela's case. Your repeated attempt to lie and claim that it does will not detract from that fact. Again for the umpteenth time THE DUBLIN CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY IN PAMELA'S CASE.

Now provide us with your links to back up your statistics?

And apologise for your repeated and blatant lies

by pat c Tue Jan 17, 2006 20:24

over 100 at demo including a sizeable sligo contingent. joe costello td and joe higgins td both attended and spoke at the demo. they both emphasised the need for continuing public demos pointing out that public displays of support would influence both mcdowell and the judicary.

aoife from the sligo support group also spoke as did two people from the sligo samba band who provided plenty of melodic sound during the demo.

there will be a protest at the four courts on monday 23 january at 10 am when pamelas application for a judical review will be heard.

by gay geori Tue Jan 24, 2006 02:28 gg at bearla dot ie

it should be permanent, but it's a start...

"The High Court has ordered the temporary release of a Nigerian mother-of-two who is facing deportation from Ireland."

by veronica Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:45

When you consider all that she has suffered she deserved to stay in Ireland, far more deserving of it than most Irish people I know. Stop the torture and degradation in Mountjoy.

by Vincent Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:30

She's actually been granted temporary leave pending the outcome of her inquiry. But it would be wrong to demand that she be allowed stay until the full outcome of her appeal is announced...