Support Kunle! Allow Him to Stay! Protest At GNIB in Dublin!

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 28, 2006 15:02

He should be allowed stay. However, it should be pointed out that he cannot be deported today or any other day as long as a judicial review is underway. However, that could be over in a couple of weeks.

by Paul Hingiis Tue Mar 28, 2006 15:25

You are mistaken Gay Geori, Kunle can actually be deported before his judicial review is heard. Last month the Supreme Court ruled that the Minister for Justice can remove any failed asylum seeker before a judicial review is heard. This is to stop time wasting and costly appeals.

by nerraw Tue Mar 28, 2006 15:34

A cynical person might say Kunle is using the child to stay in the country and it was very irresponsible of him to do so.

And this must be a first for indymedia, using an ireland on sunday and sunday world article to back up an argument.

Wasn't the very same newspapers pointed to be anti kunle not so long ago?

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 28, 2006 15:38

This is not time-wasting. He's entitled to due process. And he CANNOT be deported until the JR is over. McDowell does not have more power than the courts.

by Paul Hingiis Tue Mar 28, 2006 16:04

Kunle has failed all stages of the process to date. Under the immgration act 99 they (Dept of Justice) have reason to oppose his leave to remain on at least 4 points. To translate Gay Geori - that means he is snookered!

by Gay Geori Tue Mar 28, 2006 19:37

He cannot be deported until the judicial review is complete. He's already been granted leave to pursue it. If he was deported and the judicial review went his way are you telling me he'd be brought back a second time anyway? McDowell is no fool.

by Legal Tue Mar 28, 2006 20:02

Perhaps the text of the relevant judgement might help:

Extract from Adebayo & ors -v- Commissioner of an Garda Siochána.

Emphasis added.

First of all, I am of opinion that the learned High Court judge is not correct in the view he took that even in the case of an application for leave which required an extension of time, the State, if on notice of such application, would not be entitled to implement the deportation order even in the absence of an interim injunction. In my opinion, that would lead to an unworkable interpretation of the Act. In this particular case, the applicants were all being deported to Nigeria. Nigeria is a particularly good example for illustrating the principle in that there are no scheduled flights between Ireland and Nigeria. On this occasion and, it seems to be understood on all occasions, when a number of Nigerians are being deported a large jet aircraft is chartered for the purpose. If the view of the learned trial judge is correct, every one of the intended deportees could contact their solicitors and procure that an application for leave to obtain judicial review would be lodged even if it was well outside the fourteen day period and none of them could then be deported. That, in my opinion, would lead to an absurdity. The Act has to be given a reasonable workable interpretation which respects the rights of the proposed deportees on the one hand but also renders deportations provided for under the Act to be possible and achievable. I would, therefore, hold that if the fourteen day period has expired and, therefore, time has to be extended, the State is entitled to go ahead with the deportation notwithstanding an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings with the accompanying application for extension of time unless an interim injunction has been obtained from the court preventing the deportation.

I trust that clears up the issue.

by Dinjo Tue Mar 28, 2006 20:47

It really does seem a shame, no matter how well intentioned, that an important issue such as this should be allowed to become so contorted and misrepresented in the way that it is presented above.
From the facts which I have managed to glean from the media it would seem-:

(1)The circumstances of Kunle’s initial arrival in Ireland remain somewhat vague even to this very day.

(2) With any such high profile case it would be fair to assume, that Kunle’s application for asylum has been considered fully in accordance with UNHCR regulations and best practice guidelines. His asylum claim was eventually found to contain no merit. Nonetheless he was, quite generously, allowed to remain on here for some years as a guest of the Irish Taxpayers, until he had completed his leaving certificate.

(3) Likewise it appears that Kunle himself is no angel, for his initial brush with the law came as a result of a close association he had with another Nigerian asylum seeker, and in whose company he was apprehended in an attempted act of bank fraud at Dublin Airport. Although Kunle was later found not to be directly complicit in that particular crime, he did go on to commit a series of road traffic offences, including driving without a licence, tax or insurance. Hardly minor misdemeanours, and which in accordance with our laws, can be punishable with custodial sentences.

(4) Perhaps somebody will kindly explain what the particular role “racism” now plays in his proposed return to his native country? Surely if there ever was any basis for such an accusation, then it must equally be shared by the UNHCR. Because the Irish Immigration authorities are simply abiding with the letter of the Geneva Convention and UNHCR best practice guidelines.
Is it acceptable to misrepresent UNHCR as being institutionally Racist also?

(5) It might well be said of the comments contained in the article above that they themselves lean much more towards racism than any action by the Irish Authorities

Take for example the-: “away from oppressive, dangerous, Nigeria”. One can only be bewildered by such a sweeping and damming indictment of an entire democratically constituted nation and its 130M people. Surely such utterances are a blatant expression of racism.

Another example of wild and misleading rhetoric contained above is-: “In fact, driving regulations are not available in their native languages and high cost of driving lessons and insurance prohibits driving instruction and proper documentation for many immigrants, who have to deal with this institutional racist discrimination while trying to drive miles to work and for family reasons”

Surely Kunle has had an education here, and indeed passed his Leaving Cert. However I would be curious to learn, what the language used within his school, if indeed it was not English.

(6) It is really a shame that the people responsible for the article have obviously not taken time or effort to adequately research certain other pertinent issues dealing with Political Asylum in this country.

(a) For example the total number of asylum applications lodged in Ireland between 1990-2005 is Aprx 71,592. (Source UNHCR)

The number of Nigerian Asylum applications lodged here during that same period was
21,375. representing 30% of all asylum applicants(source UNHCR) which seems very curious indeed considering the 3,000 mile distance needed to get here in the first place, and all the more so, bearing in mind that there are no direct transport links in existence between our two countries.

(b) In casting about with wild accusations of Racism on the part of Min. Mc Dowell, it should be noted that in all fairness, that even despite an asylum failure rate of aprox. 80% ;factually less than 300 Nigerian Nationals in total have ever so far been repatriated.

(c)To frame this in its context; out of the 21,375 total Nigerian asylum applications lodged here over the past several years, 80% were found to be unsubstantiated; meaning 17,100 could have been deported.
But factually over the last 10 years, less than 300 Nigerian Nationals in total(1.4% of all Nigerian applicants) to date have ever been repatriated back to their homeland.

So wherein lies any basis whatsoever for branding Min McDowell as some kind of vindictive racist. It simply can not be borne out by any of the facts. One must therefore assume that the term is being loosely bandied about here as a weapon, quite intentionally, as a crude and misleading form of intimidation.

Considering the reality contained in the UNHCR numbers however Min. McD is much more likely to be accused by his electors of allowing far too much leniency towards failed Asylum Applicants, including Kunle.

by Curiosu Tue Mar 28, 2006 22:13

Whill Kunlee not just be back in ould irelrland soon anyway because if he marrys that girl he can come back to ireland.
why is mac dowel just waisting all owr money to send him home to niggeria?

she goes over there and marrys him,
honeymoon at mount kilimanjaro
he comes straight back

mac dowel has it in for this kid so Kunlee is going home

and then he will be back next year!!!!.

mr curiosu

by kathurlick - (very naughty comment this one) Wed Mar 29, 2006 15:22

oh well. make a decent woman of her Kunle!
or in these enlightened times...
make a decent man of him girl!
then we'll talk about the social welfare allowances I suppose

by SH Wed Mar 29, 2006 16:15

(1) Kunle’s arrival wasn’t vague and he explained it numerous times. He himself believed he was in America.

(2) Kunle was not a guest of the tax payer. He has worked in a shop since arriving and he is not in direct provision. As for the UNHCR and international guidelines, the UNHCR does not act on any decisions, nor does it interfere with decisions. Decisions to deport someone are made by McDowell and McDowell alone.

(3) His offences do not merit a deportation. A far bigger misdemeanor is drink driving and two of McDowell’s government buddies have been convicted of drink driving offences. McDowell didn’t even comment on these and their offences were very serious. It is a bias by McDowell and the justice system. If McDowell was really concerned about motoring offences he would be far more outspoken against his drink driving buddies. His main focus seems to be to privatise speed camera’s.

(4) As I said earlier the UNHCR does not comment on individual decisions. Our Immigration Act is against International law and has been attacked by Amnesty International. Kunle is being deported because he is from Nigeria and the Refugee council have commented in the Media recently that the biggest difficulty facing asylum seekers getting status is if they are Nigerian.

(5) This point is not valid. Nigeria is not a safe country and the Irish government don’t recognize it as a safe country. The US State department report also heavily criticizes Nigeria for it’s poor human rights records, imprisonment of political opponents and extra judical killings. An attack on the Nigerian Government is not an attack on its people. By your logic any attack on the Irish government you would construe this as an attack on the Irish people, this is obviously untrue and it has similar tones to the way the Bush calls anti war activists anti American, it is neither rational nor true

As for your other points.

(a) A Dublin convention applies if an asylum seekers application is to be processed by another EU country. It is against international law not to process an asylum application unless the Dublin Convention applies. There are very few Dublin Convention deportations.

(b + c) Far more asylum seekers leave voluntarily than are deported. Many more flee the country to live illegally abroad rather than go back to Nigeria. It would be completely untrue to say that all applicants who have received deportation orders are still in Ireland. In fact the Gardai believe that there are no more than 6000 people living illegally in Ireland and the main non documented immigrants are believed to be from Eastern Europe. As for McDowell being a racist, the citizenship referendum was clearly racist and it was timed for the local elections to play the race card during those elections, despite having signed an anti racist pledge just days before. It was introduced on completely false pretenses and the statistics never backed up McDowell’s arguments and the situation in Maternity hospitals has deteriorated further since then, this is due to poor management and poor funding. It has been covered in the main stream press that McDowell commented to Ivana Bacik that the referendum was just to get rid of Nigerians. Attacks on ethnic minorities increased during the referendum, with a large number of the attacks being directed against pregnant women. McDowell knew well in advance that this would happen as the NCCRI had previously stated that during the Nice referendum with the negative portrayal of immigrants attacks increased, as they do when politicians speak negatively about immigrants. He knew, he just didn’t care.

by Erit Wed Mar 29, 2006 19:55

(It has been covered in the main stream press that McDowell commented to Ivana Bacik that the referendum was just to get rid of Nigerians)

Whaaaaa?

Why did he say this?

Do ya think he just might, I stress MIGHT, have been taking the piss?

by Observer Wed Mar 29, 2006 22:18

Whether Kunle is a father or not should not be allowed to influence his application. Its the same for me if I go to Australia and have a kid, it doesn't mean that I should be granted asylum. Apart from being a father, could someone give me just one good reason (if any exist) why he should be allowed stay?

by Dinjo Thu Mar 30, 2006 23:59

Please let us be Fair!

If indeed a reasonable case is to be made for Kunle or indeed for others in similar circumstances, then it certainly merits an unbiased look at some of the facts and surrounding circumstances. Surely little of any consequence will ever be gained by either eclipsing pertinent facts or indeed by wild accusations of Racism on the part of the elected Govt of this country.

(1) I believe like myself many people had been given to understand, that Kunle had journeyed by air from Nigeria, as arranged and in fact was accompanied by his Aunt, who had earlier told him she was taking him to The USA.
Nonetheless Kunle subsequently presented himself to the Asylum authorities here as an unaccompanied minor, as his travelling companion by that time seemed to have mysteriously disappeared!

(2) Contrary to your statement regarding the financial independence of Kunle, he was accepted into The Asylum System as an unaccompanied minor and would consequently have become a ward of the Irish state. He would indeed needed to have been “Super-Kid” to study full time in school during the day for his leaving certificate, while at the same time working to pay in full for his upkeep. He may perhaps have worked part time, to afford other items such as for cars or clothes etc.

(3) The outgoing High Commissioner for Refugees in Dublin, some short while ago publicly announced that “ compared to the rest of Europe, Ireland has to be a model of what can be done” She went on to state that Ireland had invested massively in training staff and setting up asylum institutions. Furthermore that Ireland was a model donor and had increased its funding from Euro 3M in 2000 to Euro 14M in 2005.

(A) The Number of Asylum Claims Lodged in Ireland per 1,000 of population is one of the highest in Europe, during 4- years 2001-2005. (Source UNHCR)

Vol. of Asylum Applications in Europe per 1,000 Inhabitants

Ireland-------------- 9.4 Germany----------3.3

UK------ ------------ 5.5 Greece-------- ---3.0
Netherlands------- 5.3 Denmark---------5.5
France-------------- 4.7 Finland-----------3.0
Belgium------------- 8.8
Spain-----------------0.8
Italy-------------------1.0

(B) Asylum applications lodged in Ireland by Nigerian Nationals alone during years 2000-2004 (source UNHCR) is the highest in the world.

Nigerian Asylum Applications

Ireland--------------- 15,800 Germany----------------3,763
Austria----------------6,518 Canada----------------- 3,478
Spain------------------6,239 Switz ------------------- 2,448
UK-------------------- 4,759 Sweden---------------- 1,130
France----------------4,569 USA----------------------439.

Now if indeed, and as SH appears to claim, that Irish people or Mr. McDowell are some kind of mindless, vindictive racists, it quite simply can not be borne out by the real facts.

The tributes concerning our asylum system volunteered by the outgoing UNHCR Commissioner as mentioned above.

• The fact that Ireland already receives one of the highest levels of asylum applications per 1,000 of its inhabitants in Europe; in fact 3-times higher than the average of 3.6 applications per 1,000 inhabitants lodged in the big 5 of UK, Germ, France, Italy, and Spain.

• Even a brief glance at the volume of Nigerian asylum applications lodged in Ireland (5,800) during years 2000-2004, could only lead to one conclusion, and one conclusion alone, that Ireland remains without doubt their most favoured destination in the world. Even despite the fact that there are no direct transport links in existence between our countries, but neither does it seem that they in any way are deterred by such obstacle.

(4) Nigeria presumably just like in any other democracy is said to “Get the Politicians We Deserve” as we are responsible for voting them in and maintaining them. In the case of Nigeria the voting age starts at 18 years of age and elections are held there every 4-years.
There are 8 Independent political parties. Their 2-tier system of Govt is very similar to our own.
At grass-root level there are almost 800 locally elected councils.

So please in the name of common sense, and fairness, wherein lies the basis for impromptu pronouncements of racism on the part of Irish officialdom, or indeed for the persistent racist type denigration of the Nigerian Govt. Surely they too are simply trying to do the best they can in difficult circumstances. Lets encourage them and not simply vilify them.

by phm Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:11

1. All the interim injunctions in the world do not change the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the entitlements of alien parents of Irish born children.

2. The recent history of Nigerian immigration into Ireland has nothing to do with real or alleged oppression in Nigeria.

This phenomen is a consequence of:
(a) The restoration of democracy and legal protections in Nigeria which resulted in the UK authorities 'fast-tracking' Nigerian illegals for deportation. This country became the default target.

(b) The US authorities taking a similar decision (But in the case of the US, the authorities detain the illegal-immigrant/putative asylum-seeker, who is put on the next plane back to Lagos)

(c) The decision by the US authorities not to grant visa applications to Nigerians except in rare instances because of concerns about fraud and drug-trafficking.

This phenomen, which commenced in the late-nineties, was exacerbated by the perceived liberality of the Irish Asylum and legal process and the perceived unlikelihood of actually being deported from Ireland. The Irish-baby scam added to the rush.

The decline in recent years is due to the tightening up of asylum-proceedures (including fingerprinting to detect multiple asylum applicants), better air and port security, 'displacement' by Eastern Europeans which made it difficult for illegals to find work- even in the 'black' economy. (why bother employing an illegal from a non-EU country when you can employ a perfectly legal Eastern European for peanuts?), and last but not least, the referendum which put an end to the Irish baby scam.

BTW: Given that qualification for entry into the 'asylum' process is not oppression but the ability to pay large sums of money to criminal gangs to traffic the putative applicant to Ireland, it is much more likely that the system will be availed of by oppressors and the well-connected than by the poor and oppressed. This might have something to do with the high failure rate of applicants for asylum.

I trust this will leave your readers better informed.

by Observer Fri Mar 31, 2006 22:48

How did Kunle get here?
Would he be able to elaborate on which country he passed through first before arriving in Ireland as there are no direct flights between this country and Nigeria?

The rar wants the asylum system to be taken out of ministerial hands. What surprises me about this is that the National Economic and Social Council said that Ireland needs to have more control over immigrants coming into the country and in the event of an economic slump, Irish workers would find it very difficult to find jobs. They recommended that the Irish Government fully take control over allowing immigrants coming into the country.

by matt Sat Apr 01, 2006 03:18

I think you are confusing immigrants who come here merely to work and those who have to flee their countries to protect themselves and their children. The vast majority of immigrants are from eastern european countries and even the figures for those who immigrate from america and the uk outdoes the number of asylum seekers that apply here each year....asylum seekers and refugees do not pose an economic threat to Ireland. Taking the asylum process out of ministerial hands would make it more impartial and fair. It would allow for the true investigation of claims and not make it a tool that the minister can use to promote his reelection. Or are you arguing that even those who have a valid case for asylum should be deported if they are not deemed economically viable?
Fear of economic disaster is peddled in a number of cases to explain not acting in a moral or humane way....granting people asylum from the threat of fgm, murder etc., supporting (kind of but not enough that the bad guys might notice) the iraq war... when is ireland going to start acting from what it believes in instead of running scared from imagined effects on the market and economy....

by Observer Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:54

You were missing my point. It primarily focused on the fact that the ministers do not have (full) control over immigration. The rar says they do. However, the National Economic and Social council did recommend that they take full control over immigration. Currently, Irish bosses are allowed decide who remains on in the country. If asylum seekers were allowed to work, this would be the same problem only another obstacle in processing their case.

Kunle had the opportunity ao appeal his case twice and it looks like its going to be three times now. Does he refuse to accept this decision other than the decision he wants? Or will he show his disregard for the basic Irish law and order by going into hiding if he fails this time?

by Saddler Sat Apr 01, 2006 21:50

Sorry son, you're not playing by the rules, this is not a racist jibe before some clown takes it up that way, see it in the context that it is. He was REFUSED more than once appeal to stay and thats the end of it. If I go to the USA and take the pi** I get thrown out and probably wont ever be allowed back, doesnt matter how many women I impregnate, so please people cop on and stop making the Law look useless, it was designed for a reason.

by matt Sat Apr 01, 2006 23:45

And just as I apparently missed your point so did you miss mine. To explain again...my point is that there is a very big difference between 'economic' immigrants and asylum seekers...people who come here to work, 'economic' immigrants, have the choice to remain in their own country and carry out a normal life (although at far lower wages probably)...asylum seekers come here fleeing something whether it's political repression, slavery, fgm whatever. Asylum seekers and refugees make up a small minority of the people who arrive on our fair shores every year...there leave to stay is granted on humanitarian grounds and NOT because they will add to or take away from our economy. The decision to grant their application is not an economic one and if it is it shouldn't be....there should be an independent body which could fully investigate each claim without the political wrangling that we see from McDowell....your focus on defining everyone in the same category of immigrant ignores the fact that aslum seekers are not the same as other immigrants, unless you want to lump wealthy americans and penniless somalians into the same arbitrary category. Making the decision on purely economic grounds will lead to a system that favours those that can afford to pay there own way and contribute hefty amounts of tax and is against those that, god forbid, might actually genuinely need your help.
I do not believe in limiting the numbers of genuine asylum seekers and refugees to the likes of Fine Gaels 1000 a year quota. The wealthy west has become so at the expense of what are now third world countries...this is a fact. And we are not separate from this just because we too were occupied by britain. It is high time the west started taking responsibility instead of just writing poor african and non western nations off as ignorant and unable to govern themselves. Part of this responsibility is helping those that are now being abused in their own countries.

by phm Sun Apr 02, 2006 00:11

It seems you have bought into most of the posionous myths put about by the fringe elements in the asylum industry.

1. It is common knowlege in Nigeria that the US puts Nigerian illegals on the next plane back to Lagos without appeal or judicial review. It beggars belief that any Nigerian would choose the US as an asylum destination in preference to Ireland. ORAC, the RAT, and the Courts didn't buy it either.

2.Any 'contribution' to our economy would have paled into insignificance beside the cost to the Irish taxpayer of providing him with free legal aid for his failed asylum appeal, his failed judicial review, and his appearances in the crimnal courts.

3. Repeat insurance offenders are routinely jailed by the Irish courts.

4. Irish immigration and asylum law and practice complies with all the relevant international laws and conventions. In many areas it provides safeguards which exeed the requirements of the relevant international laws and conventions. I challenge you to specify a single instance where Irish immigration law or practice failes to comply with international law, whether UN, EU, ECHR, or otherwise.

5. Since democracy was restored in Nigeria the US refuses entry to illegal Nigerians. Nigerians intercepted at US ports and airports are detained, and after a cursory interview, they are dispatched home on the next plane.

(a) Ireland does not apply the full rigours of the Dublin Convention and generally only uses it against proven 'asylum-shoppers'.

(b) Nonsense. The Garda Press Office specifically and expressly stated that there was no increase in reports of race hate incidents in the lead up to the citizenship referendum.

best regards

by phm Sun Apr 02, 2006 00:46

The vast majority of immigrants coming to Ireland are legal immigrants coming here to seek work or take up job-offers. Most of these are from countries much poorer than Ireland. In fact, on a per-capita basis Ireland now welcomes more immigrants than any other first world nation.

A small minority of people coming here claim entry on the grounds that they are fleeing oppression and require sanctuary. These persons are asylum-seekers. Their claims are dealt with by a process which contains safeguards for the applicants far in excess of the requirements of the relevant international laws and conventions, and has been specifically commended by the UN as a model of its kind.

Asylum seekers whose claims are deemed to have substance and credibility are given refugee-status. Those who are found to have made false, insubstantial, or incredible claims are refused refugee status and are legally liable to deportation.

Ireland as a soverign state has an inherent legal right to regulate immigration and to determine who may or may not come here. Ireland has freely decided to exercise its soverign right to regulate immigration in accordance with international laws and conventions.

No soverign government would ever hand over its executive functions, the quasi-judicial functions of its administrative tribunals, or the judicial functions of its courts, to an NGO. Moreover, the UN would never ever accept responsibility for determining who should or should not be deported because if it did it would be completely compromised in its advocacy role for refugees. Those who advocate handing over the asylum process to the UN are peddling moonshine.

by matt Sun Apr 02, 2006 03:04

Your first two paragraphs agree with my post so obviously I got something right. And i mentioned nothing about the UN so don't know who that's aimed at.
On the subject of 'Asylum seekers whose claims are deemed to have substance and credibility are given refugee-status' the whole issue being discussed here is the determining of what constitutes substance and credibility....life expectancy in nigeria is 43 years, that's half the irish figure...you send someone back to Nigeria and you are killing them is basically how it works out. Somalians are deported for not having valid passports despite living in a country which has had no functioning government for the last 15 years. A child is currently expected to be deported despite having a life threatening illness that can't be treated in Nigeria. Petitions from communities who know the individuals and support of local TDs has absolutely no effect on McDowell though presumably it is the people of these communities he is currently being employed with our tax money to sit in government for...it's nice to know that we can pay someone etortionate amounts of money not to listen to us.
You sit in Ireland and assume that life in Nigeria isn't that bad while people who have lived in Nigeria and travelled to Ireland, legally and without going through the asylum process, have told of having to sleep with a gun under their pillow in case gangs came to rob the house, of constant fear and uncertainty. These people have no ulterior motive for telling these stories but never mind...if mcdowell thinks Nigeria is safe who are we to question him?
As for the legal rights of Ireland that is not an issue. Ireland I am sure has many legal rights but that's not what we are here to discuss. the issue under discussion is what Ireland COULD do to help asylum seekers and refugees from countries that live in poverty while we buy their cheap goods and steal their oil and support america when it decides on regime change....The issue under discussion is what is possible not what is obligatory. Failure to see possibilities beyond merely what the law dictates demonstrates a singular lack of imagination.

by phm Sun Apr 02, 2006 16:36

Dear Matt,

As you well know, substance and credibility are defined, not by the MInister for Justice, but by the international laws and conventions on refugees, all of which this country observes.

The Irish asylum-process (praised as a model by the UN), and the independent courts of law, not the Minister for Justice, determine whether individual claimants establish credible grounds for refugee status sufficient to meet the low standard of proof required in these matters.

The Minister only deports those whose asylum claims have been deemed false, insubstantial, or lacking credibility by the UN-approved process. Ireland NEVER deports refugees to their country of origin.

The ulterior motive for making up false stories is rather obvious (even to someone lacking any imagination!). The motive is to get the right to stay in Ireland as a refugee. The people who try to cheat the system in this manner undermine a process whose purpose is to protect the politically oppressed of this world.

Matt, can I ask you?
1. Should we automatically grant refugee-status to every person from any country with a lower life-expectancy than Ireland who has the facility to pay criminal gangs to traffic them here (usually through safe third countries)?
2. Should we accept claims for refugee-status without question? accept their claims without question?
3. Should we only accept those whose children do good leaving-certs?
4. Should we overturn the decision of the UN approved process on the basis of lobbying by fringe groups like the RAR?
5. Should we overturn these decisions (the other way) on the basis of lobbying by the fringe Immigration Reform Platform?
or,
6. Should we accept the decisions of the UN-approved process and our own independant courts?

In all the individual cases you mention, the person, tribunal, and court that heard ALL the evidence, just didn't believe the claimants.
Incidentally, Kawasaki's disease is a temporary and minor ailment in most cases. I understand that the Nigerian mother and child were offered independent medical assessment to determine whether there is any substance in the claim that this child has suffered any long-term effects which would benefit from hi-tech medicine.

by evidence? Sun Apr 02, 2006 18:24

'praised as a model by the UN'?

Links please

by Andrew Sun Apr 02, 2006 19:16

Evidence

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/01/16/story81...3.asp

Suggestion

Learn to use a search engine.

by legal ego Mon Apr 03, 2006 02:03

re: the State is entitled to go ahead with the deportation notwithstanding an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings with the accompanying application for extension of time unless an interim injunction has been obtained from the court preventing the deportation.

He's done just that! Kunle has obtained an interim injuction and is not going to be deported for now!


....the Nigerian student who was brought back to this country after a public outcry about his deportation ahead of his Leaving Cert last year, has temporarily stopped a second bid to deport him to Nigeria.

by matt Mon Apr 03, 2006 04:18

to answer your questions
1. Sorry to answer this one with another question but what alternatives are there for people who are often fleeing government persecution than to go to criminal gangs? if they tried to get on a plane and come to ireland without a visa they wouldn't be allowed to quite obviously...criminal gangs take advantage of this...you seem to believe however that the ability to pay a gang to get you out of your country makes you either stinking rich or a criminal like them.....but can you give me an alternative?
2. I never suggested we should ( at the risk of being branded a godless unpatriotic fiend I don't as it happens believe in borders and nations and don't pledge allegiance to any flag...my nationality is an accident of birth but I don't think it should give me the right to receive all the benefits of the world economy while other accidents of birth deny others the same benefits.) what I suggested and believe is that the asylum process be made more independent and free from the minister of justices control...
3. No we shouldn't accept only those who do well in the leaving cert. Kunle's leaving cert results don't concern me in the slightest and if he failed all his exams it wouldn't change my opinion. My point was that he has widespread community support. The people who know him believe he should be allowed to stay. McDowell, who can hardly be described as having spent quality time with him, doesn't. The people who know him should be given precedence. Of course then we get back to the argument where the government is in fact looking at the long term picture and the normal everyday people don't know the whole story and are unable to make a tough decision for the greater good. Well tough decisions for the greater good usually involve somebody innocent losing out. I don't want to be sacrificed for the greater good by some bureaucrat and I wouldn't expect anyone else to be either.
4.If the UN were all knowing and infallible then no. My point once again is that the UN sets the requirements for each country but we could do more. Yes they should be overturned if they are unfair and wrong. Yes they should be overturned if a community comes out in support of the asylum seeker in question. Yes yes yes yes yes. The UN isn't everything you know...it could do with a lot of improvement and is dominated by the western countries who have the most interest in keeping refugees out.
5.What do the immigration control platform base their arguments on? RAR seems to believe in equality and fairness, respect for human life and putting people ahead of our economic best interests.
from reading the immigration control platform website they seem to have very little in the way of a...let's call it a global conscience. go on go have a read. http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/arguments.htm
one of their arguments is that asylum seekers should not be allowed to work because then irish people might get to know them and not want them to be deported...this is hardly a stance designed to decrease racism. they also state that employers only want asylum seekers to be allowed to work so that they can exploit cheap labour, a desire which a legal requirement for equal wages regardless of nationality would get rid of. I don't think that decisions should be overturned in their favour and indeed whether they could even find humanitarian grounds for sending someone back to where they came from.
6. Not if we don't believe that the decisions are the right ones no. There is a need for a great change in the way the world is run, exploitation of poorer nations and the belief of the richer ones that somehow they have a right to be richer comes top of the list. The irish legal system is not perfect and may never be.

You seem to believe that your list of questions are rhetorical and lead inevitably to agreement with your final question. this is not so.

Immigration into Ireland is not merely a local political issue it's a global one. Political freedoms, wealth, standards of living etc. are not distributed fairly and evenly around the world. We are wealthy BECAUSE developing countries aren't. Seeing asylum seekers as the problem instead of a symptom of a much graver issue is never going to solve the real problem. Tighten up immigration controls and keep people out and they will continue die and suffer. Until irish society starts to see people of all nationalities as equal, as human, as worth helping it will continue to watch injustice on tv instead of trying to go out and do something about it.

by matt Mon Apr 03, 2006 04:23

Following Andrews link you find that what was said about Irelands asylum process was that compared to everyone else we are a model system...this merely amounts to saying we are the best of a bad lot and does not constitute evidence against pushing for reform of our ayslum process.

by Andrew Mon Apr 03, 2006 09:20

I am sure Matt, you will appreciate the irony that the article criticised policy regarding child asylum seekers.

The kind of asylum seeker if you recall, Kunle found it in his interest to pretend to be by fraudulently altering his age.

by Observer Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:11

Despite the N.E.S.C. recommending that the Irish Government needs to take full control over the immigration system, Kunle has been working at the local Super Valu and did his boss sanction his compulsary stay in the country? I also find it questionable how; even though he was still in the process of applying for asylum, he managed to get a job. Does this not break the conditions of applying for asylum?

by phm Mon Apr 03, 2006 22:14

Well, Matt -
To answer your last proposition first:
WE in the west are not wealthy because developing countries are not. We are wealthy because we are relatively democratic, organized, and focused more on creating wealth than stealing it from each other. This is why the countries that are paying zillions to Nigeria for her oil are still wealthy, and Nigeria, recipient of all this wealth, is a fourth-world basket-case. (I know, they didn't explain it quite like that in your Marxist primer)

as for the rest:
1. You seem to have missed the point - which is that the genuinely oppressed of this world are the persons least likely to be in a position to avail of the asylum process. The genuinely oppressed are more likely to be stuck in slums or refugee-camps. Expanding the 'programme refugee' programme (which Ireland is now doing) is the way to help the genuinely oppressed. However, helping the oppressed is not the real concern of the refugee industry. Their real concern is an ideological denial that soverign states have the right to regulate immigration.
2.The asylum process isn't within the control of the Minister. He merely decides whether or not any particular illegal immigrant should or should not be deported.
3. Again you miss the point. The right to refugee-status should be decided by the UN-approved asylum-process (subject to judicial review by the independent courts), and according to international law - not by tiny fringe groups. What next? Do you propose that criminal culpability should be decided by the size of demos' by 'Residents against Conviction' rather than by independent courts?
4. The UN sure aint perfect, but it can't be all bad when it is constantly vilified by the US 'neo-cons' and the RAR.
5. Quite properly, the Immigration Reform Platform no less than the equally extreme and unrepresentative RAR have no influence on the asylum-process.
6. I cannot see how allowing the asylum-process to be undermined by bogus claimants does anything to help the third world.

by matt Tue Apr 04, 2006 00:29

Surprisingly I have never studied the works of marx, or even flicked through them as I browsed my way through a random bookshop. Not sure why you assume that I have but then you are presumably more familiar with the marxist theory than I am. I have so far not made any attempt to label you as I don't know who you are except from what I have read here, you could try affording me the same respect.

I continue to believe that we are wealthy BECAUSE third world nations aren't. Nigeria may be a fourth world (apparently it's slipped a notch) basket case but it didn't exist until europeans took out a map of africa and divvied it up between them creating countries where a whole hodgepodge of cultures were suddenly a nationality. Britain for one continued to use a divide and rule system which has exacerbated and created in many cases the civil wars and conflicts that we see today. Has europe accepted any responsibility for this? Are we honestly trying to make amends? No. We give wealth to those in power while refusing to demand that the natural resources of each country should benefit all those living in that country. (of course we can't exactly be called hypocritical in this as it seems we are more than willing to throw away our own natural resources as well.) We continue to use the same divide and rule system.
We still fear to remove the veto of America et al. in the UN because then the UN might decide to do something crazy like disagree with America or prosecute western countries for complicity in war crimes.
It is the developed countries who dominate the WTO.
The IMF and the World Bank always have as their leaders American and British bankers.
Developed countries are kept in debt, desperately struggling to pay off loans even when the promises that came attached to these loans fail to come good.
We continue to bow down to the US even when they decide to use unilateral action and break international law because of the fear of economic forces.
The West does not want developing nations to in any way encroach upon their longstanding markets, employing rampant protectionism while denying it to the developing countries. Hypocrisy isn't quite strong enough a word.
We in the west are responsible for the mess we've made.

I note that you quite easily make the leap from the asylum process to the criminal one. To me these issues aren't linked. Your attempt to join them up....well let's not make assumptions. let's assume it was a slip of the tongue (or the finger perhaps).

In my answer to question three I didn't miss the point. I just didn't AGREE with you. I was not talking about tiny fringe groups, I was talking about communities, communities who surely know enough to figure out whether or not someone will be good for them. These COMMUNITIES, not fringe groups, should be given more of a say.

I'm sorry I just had to quote this again...
'2.The asylum process isn't within the control of the Minister. He merely decides whether or not any particular illegal immigrant should or should not be deported.''
So the only power the minister has is to decide whether or not asylum seekers should be deported....You're right that in no way resembles control over the asylum process. How could I have been so blind. Poor McDowell has got his hands tied right up don't he?

Your argument comes down to your belief that african nations make their own mess and is a thinly veiled variation on the theme of africans being unable to govern themselves, an argument which completely fails to take into account any of the effects that European and American influence have had on african people and african nations(and was one of the many arguments used in defence of the colonisation of Africa).

I don't believe I lack imagination. Hows yours holding up?

by phm Tue Apr 04, 2006 02:12

Much of the planet was colonized, not just Africa, and many of the post-colonial nations are multi-ethnic. Many (the ones that have stopped blaming colonization for their problems and moved on) have done rather well. Others, despite having great mineral wealth, have not. Singapore (a multi-ethnic community that embraced democracy, the rule of law and the free- market) and Zimbabwe (a marxist kleptocracy whose leader blames all the woes of his people on the white man) are good examples of how to get it right - and wrong.
It has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour. If Nigerians copied Singapore rather than stealing from each other they could be rich too.

I did not link asylum with crime. I used an analogy to emphasize that entitlement is best determined in accordance with the rule of law.

The community elected McDowell. RAR and the IRP are tiny self-appointed groups of extremists who have been elected by no one. The community passed the citizenship referendum by an overwhelming margin because the community was fed up with immigration scams. You can't dine a la carte on the community, Matt.

McDowell DOES have his hands tied. He is subject to the rule of law. The law only allows him deport persons whom the independent asylum process has decided are NOT refugees but illegal immigrants.

I accept you never read Marx (his book is terribly terribly boring anyway). But it is a pity , his imagination would appeal to yours.

by matt Tue Apr 04, 2006 15:17

So now I get to be a marxist by default is it? No association with the actual marxist ideology required.
Brilliant.

Singapore is a wonderful example of how to get it right. By operating a de facto one party system, stifling opposition media, rigging votes etc. A wonderful example of modern democracy it is not.

You blatantly linked the asylum process and the criminal one for obvious reasons.

There is no ONE community as you seem to picture in your head. McDowell was elected by a constituency. The people of Ireland did not unanimously appoint him minister of justice. One community seem to like him and now we are stuck with him. The people of ireland did on the other hand vote on the citizenship referendum which removed what was portrayed as a legal loophole putting huge strain on our health service and letting people come to Ireland for free. Shock shock horror horror. That does not mean that individual communities agree with it or that they're not influenced by those asylum seekers who come to this country who give back to the community in a genuinely positive way. The asylum process takes no account of this. It should. But let's not argue about the democracy we think we have and what a true democracy would look like>

by Observer Sat Apr 08, 2006 18:38

'Now we are stuck with Mr McDowell?'.....

Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council runs an exchange programme with a dozen or so Ethiopians on sanitary water Conditions and generously pays for their flights and 5 star accommodation in the Clarion Hotel right in the Heart of Dublin only to find out that they have done a runner and used this exchange programme as a backdoor to go into asylum seeking. If you cared to listen to the six one news yesterday, you would have been informed about this.

by Kunle's Chauffeur Tue Apr 11, 2006 13:44

Despite all this legal talk, you remain remiss of the fact that Kunle cannot now be deported for the duration. He did receive a driving ban and a fine in court on April 4. Did the judge recommend deportation? No? So, now that he's punished by due process, the excuse that he should be deported for not respecting the law is moot - unless, of course, Mr. McDowell wants to retry him for the same offence - which is illegal .

" A NIGERIAN student, who is currently fighting a deportation order, was yesterday fined and disqualified from driving."

The whole legal basis for deporting Kunle has now collapsed. Welcome to Ireland for Good, son.

by Michael Hellbert Tue Apr 11, 2006 14:19

Kunle's Chauffe,

You are completely wrong with the tripe you have just come up with. Kunle is currently awaiting a High Court decision on his deportation; the chances of him winning it are very slim indeed. Kunle is trying the "Irish" baby path; this type of case was the subject of a Supreme Court decision in 2003 - in favour of Michael Mc Dowell. Further cases have come up since then, all have gone in favour of the Minister.

Aside from the baby issue, any act of law breaking is grounds for a person to be deported. The other fact you seem to have forgotten is that Kunle failed every single stage of his asylum application. I think you are in for a bit of a shock when the High Court issues its decision.

by phm Tue Apr 11, 2006 17:06

These are the facts and the applicable law:

1. This Nigerian man was legally deported after his claim for political asylum was deemed to be unfounded or lacking credibility by our UN-approved asylum process. His further attempt to frustrate his deportation by applying to the Courts was deemed to have no merit. In both his asylum appeal and judicial review he was represented by legal counsel provided free to him by the Irish taxpayer.

2. In spite of having made a bogus claim for political asylum and having a criminal conviction, the Minister for Justice, in an act of misplaced compassion allowed him to return to this country for a specified period which has now expired.

3. The claim to legal residency on the basis of parenting an Irish child has been decided by the Supreme Court. The same point was previously decided in another case by the ECHR. In each case it was decided by the court that no such right existed. If 'family-re-unification' was the priority of the mother, it would have to be exercised in a country where both parents had otherwise a right to reside. In other words, the case this Nigerian is making to be allowed stay here has already been litigated at national and international level, and dismissed.

4. 'Not conducive to the public good' is recognized in international law as a ground for deporting aliens who would otherwise have a right of residence in the country in question (whether by visa or treaty). The right to deport on these grounds does not rest upon the person concerned having a criminal conviction. If, for instance, the alien is suspected of criminal involvement, his visa can be summarily terminated, and he/she can be legally deported. Persons having refugee-status cannot be deported on this ground.

5. The question of whether his remaining here is or is not 'conducive to the public good' does not arise with this Nigerian because he is neither a refugee nor has he any other legal basis to remain in Ireland (other than the temporary injunction, which is staying his deportation pending his application for leave to judicially review his deportation home)

by Dobbs Tue Apr 11, 2006 19:37

Phm,

Any convention country can, in fact, quite legally deport a refugee if convicted of a serious crime or if they are considered a serious threat to community or national security.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

Article 33 - Para 2

by Observer Tue Apr 11, 2006 19:58

Kunle has appealed his deportation order for the third time. How could he be here for 'good' if he himself consented to appealing his own deportation order for a third time? He is still in the process of awaiting his outcome and it seems so irrational to decide what his outcome 'should' be when he is still in the process of appealing his deportation. Curiously, he got a job at the local Super Valu when he was still in the application process which violates the conditions of an asylum application.

by phm Wed Apr 12, 2006 00:19

Under Irish law, which is the operative law determining the rights of people legally resident in Ireland, once refugee-status is granted, there is no provision allowing the State to send the refugee home (to the country which the asylum-process has determined it would be unsafe to return him/her to)

The relevant international conventions, including the one you have quoted, are recognized by Irish law as setting the criteria upon which refugee-status is determined. Insofar as these conventions have other provisions, such provisions have no domestic legal effect in determining rights or status.

I trust I leave you better informed.

by Dobbs Wed Apr 12, 2006 08:47

Hmmmm

I'm not disagreeing, but, AFAIK, there is no such thing as a refugee in domestic irish law either. Furthermore, a recommendation for refugee status may be revoked.

I would have the greatest difficulty believing a serial rapist or murderer could rely on refugee status to remain in this Country if convicted.

by Alan Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:23

Dobbs,
A Jamaica woman was caught with some Hard drugs as she was transiting here on her way to UK she was jailed and from the prison applied for asylum and was granted refugee status after serving her time in jail .

by Michael Hellbert Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:31

Alan,

You are forgetting one important thing - Kunle is finished with the Asylum process. He failed every single stage of the Asylum process and was determined a failed asylum seeker. When he returned to Ireland he was only here on a temporary visa. His behaviour since returning hasn't been the best.

by Alan Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:12

Kunle's is a failed asylum seeker and I perfectly underrstand that but it seems our country would rather harbour an exconvict and drug courier but will throw out kunle for commiting very serious crimes like driving a banger around without insurance and road tax and sleeping with an Irish girl.

by phm Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:54

The issue is not whether one criminal is worse (or better) than another.

One of these criminals (indisputably the more morally reprehensible one) was able to establish a right to refugee-status. The other is a person whose claim to refugee status was deemed to lack substance or credibility at every stage of the process.

Ireland does not deport persons who have established refugee-status - even if they are convicted criminals. If the woman concerned did not have refugee-status, I have no doubt that she would have (very propely) been put on the first plane home after her release from prison.

To suggest that anyone has ever been deported from this country for 'sleeping with an Irish girl' is simply false. Worse still, it is the sort of emotive scatology which is regrettably the stock-in-trade of the tiny fringe groups at both extremes of the immigration debate. Shame on you!

by Friends of Kunle - The Community, Just Like Any Other Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:20

The deportation of Nigerian student Kunle Eluhanla has been halted pending a High Court challenge on behalf of his four-month-old son.

Read the RTE report: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0704/eluhanlak.html

Please support Kunle in his attempt yo remain a free man and a father to an irish child. He's undertaken much of the cost himself, and is supported only by friends and some sections of the media.

* Remember Kunle has fought this deportation through legal means, with total respect for the law, avoiding stunts like hunger strikes and organised protests by so-called anti-racist organisations.

* He is a credit to genuine asylum seekers and human rights defenders everywhere.

* He deserves our respect and sympathy.

KUNLE MUST BE ALLOWED TO STAY AND BE GIVEN IRISH CITIZENSHIP!

by Amused Wed Jul 05, 2006 13:03

Kunle has always had support. To claim that he only has support from some friends and certain sections of the media is a lie. Also perhaps you would like to explain this "Remember Kunle has fought this deportation through legal means, with total respect for the law, avoiding stunts like hunger strikes and organised protests by so-called anti-racist organisations."
It seems in this that you are trying to say that the Afghans were on hunger strike for a stunt, which is a disgraceful thing to say, especially for someone campaigning for an asylum seeker, also please explain what you mean by "so called anti-racist organisations"?

Your post is pretty bad and leaves Kunle open to far more attack than before you had posted, I am dubious as to whether you are a genuine supporter of Kunle or somebody who posted to stir up attacks against him.

by concerned Wed Jul 05, 2006 13:18

Remember Kunle has fought this deportation through legal means, with total respect for the law, avoiding stunts like hunger strikes and organised protests by so-called anti-racist organisations.

* He is a credit to genuine asylum seekers and human rights defenders everywhere.

* He deserves our respect and sympathy.

Just to make a few points

He has convictions against him for driving offences so much for his total respect for the law.

He has lost his case and keeps appealing at massive cost to us and still refuses to go. If all illegals did that we would be tied up in court for years.

He came as an illegal, refuses to leave after two cases, breaks the law repeatedly and became an unmarried father for a long shot for An Irish Born Child or IBC as they are called. So I do not feel any sorrow about his deportation