LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWell thats that then. There will be no leave to remain from the Minister for Justice. I hope they have her under surveillance in case she does another disappearing act.Originally Posted by jmcc
Well thats that then. There will be no leave to remain from the Minister for Justice. I hope they have her under surveillance in case she does another disappearing act.
What she failed to mention is that in most asylum cases the Gardai cannot do their job, because they cannot properly authenticate documents and statements from the countries asylum seekers are fleeing. This is what differentiates asylum applications from ordinary investigation procedures. I'm not sure how this transpired in this case but it's not the norm.
Last edited by Lthse; 1st April 2009 at 11:47 PM.
We need to get the courts out of the asylum-business - or at least reduce it. They and greedy asylum-lawyers are to blame for the asylum-appeals process going on for years. This is another reason to vote no to Lisbon, as the Charter will introduce the ECJ into the equation (Article 18), thereby creating yet another element to an already labyrintine asylum-appeals infrastructure, that is making a lot of people very very rich, often with free legal-aid paid for by yours truly. This case also underlines the urgent need for the govt to force through the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 so the Gardai can deport without notice, thereby reducing the numbers of bogus-asylum seekers evading deportation. FG and Labour should cooperate with this legislation. It has been doing the rounds in Leinster House for 2 years and that is more than long enough.
Absolutely. If somebody has to be given 14 days or 21 days notice (or however long it is) prior to being deported, then you're going to get people who disappear and go into hiding - including Pamela Izevbekhai, in 2005. If necessary, a Garda can accompany the failed asylum seeker back to his or her accomodation to pack, and I'm sure that they would be able to place a call to the schools of any children involved to let them know that they will not be back.
Do social welfare automatically cut off people who are evading deportations,welfare ? You i know i'd nearly bet they don't.And why are social welfare paying to house romanians aswell,their not refugees.
Joe Soap says enough is enough...............
What has that got to do with our soon to be departed?
Those of you who are so keen to deport Pamela and her real live fully human little girls might like to read this article:
Nigerian report contradicts FGM claim of diplomat - The Irish Times - Thu, Apr 02, 2009
Doubt it will give you pause for thought but at least you can't say you didn't know.
It is a mystery to me how O'Gorman came to be head of Amnesty International in Ireland.
Actually it isn't, it merely shows the extent to which that once proud organization has rotted away from its original goals and standards.
A parallel mystery is how Maurice Manning, another mediocrity with no human rights record (and indeed a record of involvement with a very anti-human rights political party--"heavy gang"" Fine gael) was named "Human Rights Commissioner" or some such nonsensical title.
To return to O'Gorman, this man had no prior record in human rights. In several years in public view he had made no pronouncement on the things he is now most exercised about--war in Iraq, female circumcision etc. etc. His only political history was as a member of a right-wing monetarist political party which had in two decades established a zero record on human rights issues. And while in that party O'Gorman showed no interest in human rights.
And now this fellow (was he even chosen as a result of open competition?) has the cheek to lecture Irish people about these matters?
Shut up, O'Gorman, you have no standing in any matters of human rights.
You're a fraud and a hypocrite!
Hi Horace
You neg repped me saying my post was a "silly post". How was it silly to point to an article that the Nigerian Government have reported higher rates of FGM in their country to the UN than they have been admitting in relation to this case?
We may disagree about this but I see no need for recourse to neg repping over it, especially as silly is not really it when it comes to this case, is it?
Scraping the bottom of the barrel now.... Most people here know the facts, they've been discussed here and in the media ad-nauseum.
I think this is more for YOU to say "at least I can say , I told them"
back into the cage with hopi watcher et al....
