LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by sandar
Would that be the same Amnesty that in a newspaper ad campaign accused 3 government ministers of being "involved in racism" ? Payback time........and well deserved.
Would that be the same Amnesty that in a newspaper ad campaign accused 3 government ministers of being "involved in racism" ? Payback time........and well deserved.
Well said, but lets not let facts muddle the situation
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Remember the Drumboe Martyrs -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Shame on you. You "stole" the point which I was going to post.
Why should that woman be allowed to use her two children as human shields to protect her from deportation? And why did she come to Ireland? After all she was living safely in Belgium for two years and then for another two years in Britain? She is an asylum shopper, not an asylum seeker.
Why should we? The people who have supported this woman's attempts to remain in Ireland should be levied in order to recover all the taxpayers' money which has been spend on her and on her children.
Right, I am well sick of both sides of this argument.
I was, at the height of claims, a legal representative FOR asylum seekers. Here are the facts as I experienced them. I would like to think, after several years posting, that I have a fairly decent record here, that being that I generally annoy both "left" and "right" wing posters. I would like to think I have a "common sense" approach to matters. You can make up your own mind.
Initially, FGM was an unknown to the authorities here. It was something we could not logically or socially comprehend. It was strange, it was disgusting and it was believed.
After a while, given the increase of applications, from Nigeria in particular, and given the Irish Born Child issue, the claims of those advancing FGM as a claim became very frequent, very similar and less and less provable and/or convincing.
The issue became, as with all claims internationally, credibility, in circumstances where no proof of travel was available (they were trafficked), no documentation (trafficked again), no proof of Nationality ( ditto) and an unwillingness of the individual to explain how they were able to present themselves at Mount Street ( the RAC) after, we were told, passing without papers through Dublin Airport ( read came across the border from NI). Anybody passing through Dublin Airport knows that, of personal experience, if you are the merest shade of off white you are stopped! Additionally, they actually have a rather sophisticated system of tracking the origin of connecting flights. Not to put a tooth in it, you simply CANNOT transit Dublin airport from Africa without very convincing documentation.
Thats the bones of it.
The fact now is that Pamela arrived in 2005. Her claim was substantiated, notwithstanding the foregoing multitude of similar claims, with documentation. The State accepted the bone fides of those documents but maintained that she could, under the Geneve convention, have availed of internal relocation. She failed to so do. It was before the courts 20 plus times and she failed to convince the State that she could not so do. Her adverse claim was one of particular risk of FGM. The document on which this was based have now turned out to be false/fabricated.
Having dealt with hundreds of similar claims, and given the evidence to date, I have no hesitance to say that my firm belief is that Pamela is an economic migrant looking to make a better life for herself, for which I don't particularly blame her, and uttered false documentation in order to advance that claim. If in future the Supreme Court decide otherwise that is fine.
In the circumstances, and given that there in NO identifiable individual risk, it is my firm belief that Pamela and her daughters, in respect of the legal parameters within which we operate, Irish and European, face, without doubt, deportation. This is as a result of the fact that International/European and Irish law are coginisant of the fact, and this is actually the rational, that we cannot become/operate as the safety valve of every crack pot/dodgy African State, which Nigeria undoubtedly is!
That underlines the need for checkpoints on the border with NI to weed out illegal-immigration across that border. The govt has already stated that 97% of asylum-seekers are getting here that way.
The logical inference of your statement is that all young African women and girls in most African countries ought to be accorded the right to claim asylum in Europe on the basis that they are all at risk from female genital mutilation. Is this not so? All? Is it practical? Justified? Depopulate Africa until this situation is sorted out?
No. Miss. I could just as easily claimed asylum in any one of a number of countries on route to Ireland from Nigeria, but chose not to. Why? Because Ireland is a "soft touch", populated by gullible, soft-headed people much like yourself.
She needs to be deported to send out a message to bogus asylum seekers that we're not accepting F.G.M. as a legitimate reason for claiming asylum.
To be fair, at that time I think O'Gorman was not involved with Amnesty.
You see, he was then pursuing his ambitions to gain election for a right-wing political party with no human rights record... Human rights was the furthest thing from his mind. He just wasn't into it...
How did he get the Amnesty job, anyway? Was there an open selection process, with public advertisement?
I'll answer my own question.
There wasn't.
I'll throw in a parallel chancer. Maurice Manning. He got another nice job (Human Rights Commission, whatever that is, quarter of a million of a year). And guess what--that job wasn't publicly advertised either!!!
Yesterday we read that he was givng up his Oireachtas salary of 45k (but keeping the quarter of a million gig). Very good, but the question must be posed. How did this mediocrity, who if memory serves me correctly never got elected, and was a political appointee to the Seanad, reach a stage where his Oirieachtas pension is much greater than the annual pay of countless Irish workers?
The fact is that the whole "Human Rights" area is full of a professional class of parasites who suck out the lifeblood of hard-pressed Irish workers.
Last edited by Horace Horse; 13th April 2009 at 08:45 AM. Reason: make it simple and easy to read for Hopi Watcher
I know that the very mention of the word immigrant sends the red mist descending over your eyes and that probably explains your utter inability to extend to two children, in danger of mutilaition, the benefit of doubt in this case, but would you make an effort to explain to us why any person or group would want an 'open borders' policy?
