Please save us

by Con Carroll - Class-war Thu Feb 02, 2006 14:38

what a pity those who are ignorant to the facts
about the lives of people who are asylum seekers living in ireland
dont become more educated
indeed they will tell us they are educated, humanitarian liberal
who will lecture us about democracy about the racist referendum
and how we Irish voted

as one placard said last week should the many Irish whoare illegal in America be deported

by Ameron Thu Feb 02, 2006 16:31

(We could not (due to no fault of ours) apply for residency under the IBC/05 scheme before the expiration of the deadline of March 31, 2005. )

You were not there for your wives before this deadline.

In the interest of completing this article, please explain what exactly was so important that kept you from complying with the deadline.

by Observer Thu Feb 02, 2006 21:12

The fact is that the Irish laws on citizenship were changed by the majority of the people of this country and people can't expect any different standards because we may as well not have any law in that case. These people may not have done anything wrong but the citizenship laws were changed and one of the changes was to close the loophole prior to the introduction of these laws after the majority voted in favour of this.

by Essie Fri Feb 03, 2006 00:35

I do not know why those fathers were, "through no fault of their own" unable to apply for citizenship at the appropriate time. What I am quite certain of is that their statements regarding life in their home country are completely accurate.

Yes, it is true that "the Irish laws on citizenship were changed by the majority of the people of this country "

May I point out that the laws were changed before we Irish citizens were aware of the life style and the inhumane conditions applicable in their country of origin. Anyone who has any doubts about this statement should consult the Amnesty International and World Watch web sites. This will change the views and attitudes of those who favour deportation.

by Ameron Fri Feb 03, 2006 09:50

Essie,

Firstly, you have no way of knowing which or if any of these statements made in the original post are applicable to the individuals involved. They are very broad statements and could in no reasonable way be construed to be applying to every single one of Nigeria’s 130 million citizens.

Secondly, you are correct, the referendum was not framed around the conditions pertaining to a specific foreign country nor could it have been.

Rather, it rotated around the kind of rules, regulations, lifestyle, conditions and society, we wish to enjoy, in our own country.

I think you will find, if you check, that Nigerians also decide who can and cannot reside in their country and they too frame internationally recognised, legal and legitimate policy around that fundamental right.

by Yomi Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:36

Dear Ameron,
This is in response to your comment that we were not there for the Children.

If a person can sell all his properties and belongings in order to send his wife to a safe country free from any persecution I think that person can best be refered to as highly responsible.

We could not apply for residency before the deadline because prior to the announcement of the IBC/05 scheme people were being deported and the threats of deportation were hanging over our wives and children.

I think it is also inportant for you to know that people who leave Africa to come to Ireland dont just get up in the morning and board a flight to Europe in the evening, in most case they cross the desert, the Oceans and endure hunger and untold hardship to be able to get here.

by lekan Fri Feb 03, 2006 13:40

Ameron,

I deployed all my life savings for my pregnant wife's trip to Ireland I wanted her to be safe and free from some barbaric customs which unfortunately are still prevalent in my country of origin so please dont tell me I was not there for her.

When she arrived in Europe and I was sure she was safe I then subsequently sold what ever property I had left and fled my country and after four failed attempts I was only able to get here in september 2005 well after the deadline for submission of application which was 31st of March 2005.

by Tadhg Fri Feb 03, 2006 13:55

I am Irish and I do not see any reason why families should be separated just because one spouse did not apply for citizenship before a certain bogus deadline and besides this issue is about the rights of the child. It is about allowing Irish Children to live in the safety of their own country with the protection of both Parents. If the Government has said going forward any child born to non Irish nationals after December 31st 2004 do not qualify for citizenship I think it is only fair if we allow every body whose child was born before then to stay and bring up their Irish children within the borders of this country if they so desire. Setting a deadline for application for residency in it self is wicked and designed to take away the right of that Irish child to the society of both parents and the right to live in the safety of this country

by Observer Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:48

"I am Irish and I do not see any reason why families should be separated just because one spouse did not apply for citizenship before a certain bogus deadline and besides this issue is about the rights of the child"

I am also Irish and the fact of the matter is that the deadline was set and anyone who has passed it can't expect any special exceptions. The citizenship laws were endorsed by the majority of the people and they brought about a number of changes and improvements to our citizenship laws. People are entitled to citizenship provided they are living here for at least 5 years and are not drawing any benefits and have been working as well.

by Observer Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55

"people were being deported and the threats of deportation were hanging over our wives and children"

A person who goes through the due process of applying for asylum and fails, has to have failed for a reason and the immigration laws in this country are there for the benefit of all. They have also benefited asylum seekers because there is now a faster time frame and no longer a backlog of waiting lists in asylum applications. There is also a process where Genuine asylum seekers can be granted asylum.

by Mary O'Connor Fri Feb 03, 2006 17:15

Laws are there and there can be no exceptions agreed but what makes a good leader and for that matter a great nation is the ability to discern that a particular law is flawed and being courageous enough to change it. A law that does not seek to keep a family together as a unit without first establishing whether keeping the family together will be inimical to the good of the state is flawed. We cannot say the mother and children can stay but the father should not stay. It is just not fair.

The women that have been granted residency will continue to be a drain on our resources. They will continue to rely on welfare and like it or not it takes two people working and earning income to run most homes especially with the escalating prices of property and ever increasing cost of living.

by Richard Holden Fri Feb 03, 2006 17:28

Dear Editor,
I do not know why you did not publish my previous comment but I still stand by what I said. If we do not give people who desire to be good fathers a chance then who do we want in Ireland.

If the Wives are permitted to stay then please let us do like all other civilized countries and give the men an opportunity to work at the end of the day this country can only be the better for it. If allowing the men to work is what will get the women off welfare then we should be grateful that these men have come to relieve this nation of that burden.

by Ameron Fri Feb 03, 2006 18:18

In response to Yomi.

You have made little attempt to explain your position. I asked you why you did not apply under the IBC/05 scheme and you claimed fear of deportation. How did your wife manage to make a claim without being deported? The answer is, there was no risk of deportations to parents of Irish born childern as there was a state of limbo following the court case that denied we were obliged to confer citizenship on childern of non-nationals.

An amnesty was granted subject to certain conditions. 11,000 people were allowed stay. It is not the fault of Irish people you had better things to do than be with your wife and childern at ALL times PARTICULARILY if they were meant to be fleeing persecution.

You go on to describe a trek across "the desert, the Oceans" enduring "hunger and untold hardship". How dare you trade on the discomfort of those who would flee in such a manner when you have clearly done no such thing.

You specifically said you sold your properties and belongings, so you don't appear to be such an individual. In fact, you have described a pre-meditated, well funded and planned illegal entry to this Country specifically, whilst avoiding many others you would have to have encountered on such a trek. I have no sympathy for your case.

In response to Lekon.

Much the same questions apply. Why did you pick Ireland? You claim you "fled" your country, but not before selling your property. "Fleeing" a country means just that ie no chance to sell property or indulge in great plans. Again, you describe a well thought out, pre-meditated departure on your own terms with a specific target country in mind.

Both of you are entitled to the presence of your families in Nigeria and your childern are entitled to citizenship there.

by Seyi Fri Feb 03, 2006 19:06

Amekon,
A lot of people were deported in 2004 go and check your facts.
People do not flee without money. Fleeing has to be planned and premeditated
several People flee their homelands via the deserts and some stow away on ship.
Quite a lot of people could not apply for residency because they were trying to find their way here.
Please appreciate the fact that this Nation is fortunate today to be a country being sought after. Learn to help and give a helping hand to the unfortunate .
My dear Amekon people in Africa do not just get up dust their passports and head for Europe it is not that simple.

by Rob Carey Fri Feb 03, 2006 19:12

I am so proud to be Irish it gives me great joy to see that people are flocking to our shores. I vividly remember a time when nobody wanted to come here but instead left our small Island in Droves in search of the proverbial greener pastures. This issue of allowing fathers of Irish born children whose wives have been granted residency to stay is to me simple and straight forward. These children even though sired by non Irish nationals are the new Irish and we need to make then feel at home and welcomed here. Their families need to function as a viable economic unit and the only way this can be done is to have both parents here and working. I strongly think the Justice Minister should have a rethink and allow these men stay and work.

by Ameron Fri Feb 03, 2006 19:35

My point is that people fleeing Nigeria overland encounter several safe countries before entering Ireland. There is an attempt by one of these individuals to portray himself as someone who has made such a wretched trip without stopping on the way when sanctuaty was reached.

This is dishonest.

Contrary to what you say, this nation does not feel fortunate to be a target for human trafficking networks smuggling illegal immigrants who would make exagerated or fictitious claims for asylum.

This nation feels honoured and grateful to those who apply to come here legally in accordance with our national laws. This nation also welcomes those who have legitimately fled persecution in accordance with International laws and claimed asylum in the first safe country they entered.

These people appear to have done neither.

by Akinlabi Fri Feb 03, 2006 19:58

I am one of those who took the overland root my Journey took me across the following safe countries in Africa, Chad, Niger, Sudan, and Libya. We were loaded unto a ship in Libya and later transferred to another ship before eventually landing here. AMekon, may you never go through what some of us have gone through.

by Ameron Fri Feb 03, 2006 20:09

Akinlabi,

I note you are reluctant to detail your jorney from Libya to here. As for the countries you passed through, three are signatories to the Refugees Convention:

Chad 12 Aug 1981
Niger 16 Sep 1971
Sudan 24 Dec 1972

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z2arcon.htm

Safe in the context of refugee protection means safe from the persecution alleged. Nothing more and nothing less.

If none of these countries could offer you a safe place from whatever you claim you are fleeing from, then surely you are a bona fide refugee and have made a successful claim for asylum and you are in no need for the aformentioned programme for residency.

by Observer Fri Feb 03, 2006 20:51

"Leaving Africa is not as straight forward as you think"

Whether leaving Africa is straight forward or not, how come the first country an asylum seeker lands in, he/she does apply for asylum there, in many cases? You say that "people in Africa do not just get up dust their passports and head for Europe". By any chance, is that because of the the latest E.U initiative to tackle illegal immigration into Europe? An asylum seeker can't apply for citizenship here, just as they can't apply for it when they are seeking asylum in a country like Italy either. What is the alternative? Let everyone in??

by Maeve Fri Feb 03, 2006 21:46

I am an Irish, it is only be fair to these poeple and the Irish society to allow these fathers to stay with their wives and children the better for our growing economic. Let us copy good things from other EU countries rather than to copy bad policy.

Thanks

by Observer Fri Feb 03, 2006 21:50

In other words, have no policy on immigration whatsoever so that there is no control over immigration into this country...

by Richard Holden Sat Feb 04, 2006 08:03

Immigration laws all over the civilised world allows for family reunification at least for the spouse of those who have been granted residency. It is only fair and it makes a lot of sense economically

by Yomi Sat Feb 04, 2006 08:27

Hi Amekon,
You seem to be under the assumption that these fathers of Irish Born Children are assylum seekers. That is not the case in reality they are applying for family reunification which the Justice minister has said they are not entitled. Fortunately these fathers have an ally in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland.

Irish Constitution Article 41.1
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State
but which the Irish constitution seems to encourage.

Enjoy your week end my dear friend. Hope we will get to meet soon maybe I will be able to convert you.

by anon Sat Feb 04, 2006 09:09

Two members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal have resigned, citing dissatisfaction with the manner in which it is run by its chairman, John Ryan, The Irish Times has learned. Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent reports.

These developments come some months after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has been criticised by the High Court for its lack of transparency. In a major judgment delivered last July, Mr Justice McMenamin ruled it was wrong to refuse lawyers for asylum applicants access to its previous decisions.

In his reserved judgment, he said this position was "unique in the common law jurisdictions" and it "cannot accord with the principles of natural and constitutional justice, fairness of procedure or equality of arms".

The refusal of the tribunal to publish decisions has been criticised by Ms McDonagh in the Bar Review. Last year, she wrote the publication of decisions would allow for a consensus about best practices to emerge and would reveal inconsistencies that existed.

Allegations of inconsistencies in the decisions of the tribunal have been rife for many years.

According to a report by Catherine Kenny of the Human Rights Centre in Galway, published three years ago, only 13 per cent of lawyers appearing before it considered there was consistency between the recommendations of its different members.

Some commented that outcomes of appeals were more dependent on the identity of the member hearing the case than on its merits.

The tribunal has consistently refused to publish statistics for the decisions of different members of the tribunal, but statistics compiled over a year ago by the Refugee Legal Service showed that one member, barrister James Nicholson, heard more than 400 cases and rejected over 95 per cent of them.

About one in four appeals to the tribunal were successful.

by Ameron Sat Feb 04, 2006 09:35

Yomi,

I assure you, the constitution is far more favourable to Irish citizens than to illegal immigrants.

Article 9

1. 1° On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.

2° The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.

The Nigerian Constitution would not allow my child to become a citizen of that Country just becasue he/she was born in that Country while I was there legally or illegally.

It's not just me you need to "convert".

I make no assumption on why the fathers of IBC are here. I have made an assumption about you based on your post. It is framed as if you are an asylum seeker as you list a number of issues. If you are not asylum seeker, then at least say so and state your reasons for not returning to your Country with your wife and childern like a responsible adult would.

by Observer Sat Feb 04, 2006 14:25

"These developments come some months after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has been criticised by the High Court for its lack of transparency."

The UNHCR has described Irelands Immigration system as one of the most "Transparent" and that the level of cooperation from the Government is unique.

So thats a lie now?!

by Observer Sat Feb 04, 2006 14:37

"Laws of the civilised world supports family reunification"

Of course they do. They also support the need to have an immigration law and for the need to ensure that noboby abuses their visa while they are visiting that country by over-staying. There are rules for everyone, even when we, as Irish citizens visit other countries too. But no authority can simply give out passports to people just because their spouse or friend lives in that particular country. There are conditions for one's entitlement to citizenship in nearly every country, including Ireland.

by Gael Sat Feb 04, 2006 14:53

Sorry but rules are rules. I am unmoved and so are the Irish people. The mood on the ground is as is reflected in the polls. With 400,000 non-nationals in the country the "racist" argument holds no water. Only 30 people on average are being deported each month. Hardly "mass deportations". On the specific issue of the "Irish-born children", we had a referendum on this in June 2004. Now respect that choice please! It's called democracy!

by Major Pat Morrison Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:22

Amekon,
up to this moment any child born in the States automatically becomes an American citizen and is entitled to every right as other citizens irrespective of the national of the parent and when that child is 18 the parents if they so desire can come over and live in the United states. And I can also authoritatively tell you that if your child is born in Nigeria that automatically confers that child with citizenship rights (whether Nigerian citizenship is desirable is another thing) I am in the US Marines and currently enjoying my break here in my ancestral home after my tour of duty in Afghanistan. The impact of Migrants on the United States has been tremendous. Ireland should give these people a chance. My parents came to the US as illegal Immigrants but today I thank God for what American has done for me.

by Observer Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:54

A child born in Ireland is also entitled to Irish citizenship and who can deny that? What you forgot to mention about America is that when the Parents wish to come visit their child in the States, there are more stringent entry requirements post 9/11. They can be refused entry if their track records with the Police (in their own country) are not clean or if the authorities suspect otherwise (Countries that have signed an agreement with the U.S on allowing their track records to be seen). Parents of Irish born children are entitled to come visit their children here in Ireland but obviously there are rules like most other countries.

by Richard Holden Sun Feb 05, 2006 19:05

Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Caricatures
AP - 52 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Thousands of Muslims rampaged Sunday in Beirut, setting fire to the Danish Embassy, burning Danish flags and lobbing stones at a Maronite Catholic church as violent protests over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad spread from neighboring Syria. Troops fired bullets into the air and used tear gas and water cannons to push the crowds back after a small group of Islamic extremists tried to break through the security barrier outside the embassy. Flames and smoke billowed from the building. Security officials said at least 30 people were injured.

If we dont allow people who have expressed desire to work and be of good behaviour stay then who do we want?

by Tadhg Sun Feb 05, 2006 19:27

Tens of millions of people across more than half the states in sub-Saharan Africa need urgent food aid, but the causes are often complex and varied. Food crises were once primarily triggered by natural disasters like droughts.
But according to research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, man-made causes are increasingly to blame. These include conflict and poor governance, as well as HIV/Aids.
Rural poverty, international trade barriers, overpopulation, deforestation, poor use of land and environmental problems can also be factors.
These people have come here to escape from problems caused by their leaders and their own people but should we turn them away? I don’t think so. We should in this case be our brother’s keeper. After all the law now says all children born to non national after December 31st 2004 do not automatically qualify for citizenship what it then means is that these group of men are just an Isolated case. Once we take care of them that it takes care of this problem for ever and I think Ireland will be the better for it.

by Ameron Sun Feb 05, 2006 23:51

And I can also authoritatively tell you that if your child is born in Nigeria that automatically confers that child with citizenship rights ()

Can you really tell me, with authority, that you know something that the Nigerian Constitution doesn't?

25. (1) The following persons are citizens of Nigeria by birth-namely-

(a) every person born in Nigeria before the date of independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria;

Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Nigeria by virtue of this section if neither of his parents nor any of his grandparents was born in Nigeria.

(b) every person born in Nigeria after the date of independence either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria; and

(c) every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of Nigeria.

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepu...a.htm

As for Tadhg,

I find myself in complete agreement up to a point.

Look at this picture very carefully and ask yourself, in all honesty, should we spend more on overseas aid in Africa or more on African "asylum seekers" here.

http://tinyurl.com/8mh6z

by cian Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:58

The Irish Sun of Tuesday , February 7, 2006 page 8 says
OUR TURN TO HELP
For almost 150 years Irish people were forced by dire economic circumstance to seek employment overseas.
Although they encountered some initial hostility, they were mostly welcomed as diligent workers prepared to contribute to the growth of their adopted countries.
Now Ireland is among the nations with opportunities to offer to less fortunate migrants.
Tens of thousands of foreigners have boosted the workforce here. Eight per cent of the total labour market came from abroad.
They are building new lives and making their homes here.
Most are sound workers, willing to take up jobs that native Irish now mainly choose to pass over in favour of better-paid employment.
An AIB report has quashed fears that the visitors are pushing the host out of jobs.
Spongers do slip through the entry system-but they are the exception.
It is our turn to embrace them just as strange nations once welcomed our poor in search of a better life

by Tadhg Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:08

Amekon, I totally agree with you that we will best be helping Africa by providing aids and grants but since we have made the fundamental mistake of granting these women residency and giving their children Irish passports we owe ourselves the moral duty to ensure that they enjoy their stay and if allowing the men to work and stay will make these women economically viable and best able to contribute positively to our economy, then as a nation we owe them that.

by Paddy Clancy Thu Feb 09, 2006 01:05

Many years ago, more than I care to remember, I shared a room for a couple of weeks in London with five strangers.
I was 17, and on my first working holiday abroad.
My room-mates were quite a bit older. They were all labourers from farm backgrounds in Ireland but there was no work for them at home.
I was luckier than them. I would be returning to college at the end of the summer to continue my education to a level never had a chance to reach.
They, and thousands like them, would spend the rest of their working lives on construction sites around London and other big British cities.
Their children would decades later, reap the benefits of their sacrifices.
TRAVEL
This week I thought of those guys crammed into one room by the greedy Irish – Born landlady exploiting her own.
I thought of them when I studied the AIB report that one in 12 of the workforce here is now immigrant. How times have changed!
Once we were on the run from poverty. Now the traffic is in the other direction.
We are hosts to jobseekers from almost every country from which travel was once blocked by the Iron Curtain.
Thousands more come from throughout Africa and Asia.
How truly wonderful that we are now such a confident, progressive and wealthy nation we can comfortably accommodate them.
FOREIGN
We have so many jobs to dish out, according to economic experts; we’re as close as any nation can to providing full employment.
For those of us old enough to remember back far enough, there’s a familiarity about workers in a foreign land putting in 12 hour days so they can send a few quid home every week and save enough to be back with loved ones at least once a year.
The difference is Ireland is “foreign” country. We’re the host providing the opportunities for those whose own economies can’t support them.
DEBT
And why not? We can well afford to be generous. We’re doing no more than repaying a debt to mankind that was incurred over many decades.
Those guys in that North London room and so many others of their kind in Britain and America have a right to be proud.
The money they sent back home went a long way towards a better life for the younger brothers and sisters who are now captains of Irish industry and architects of the Celtic Tiger.

by Anon Fri Feb 10, 2006 07:48

Who says Ireland cannot be accessed directly from Africa, for 5,000 Euros only I can link you with people who will move you by sea from West Africa to Dublin port. Journey is not going to be comfortable, accommodation would be crammed and damp but you will be delivered safely to Dublin. A lot of people in this part of the world do not seem to know that trade in human cargo is big business run by Europeans on European registered vessels manned by European crew.

by Traveller Sat Feb 11, 2006 08:14

I travelled to Ireland by sea from a port in West Africa and I was nearly dead by the time I got here.I will never advise anybody to try it. We had little food, no medicines, no warm blankets for the cold weather, sleeping quarters had no comfortable beds some people died and were thrown overboard and I wondered whether coming to Europe was worth all the trouble.

by Alex Last - BBC Correspondent Sun Feb 12, 2006 09:31

The West African state of Nigeria is the continent's biggest oil exporter. But despite its huge energy reserves and potential wealth, millions of people live in extreme poverty.
Each Nigerian state has its own number plate slogan.
Lagos, the pulsating home to 15 million-odd people, traffic jams and frequent armed robberies, is the Centre of Excellence, while Delta state has the tagline The Big Heart. This, I was later told by a Delta resident, is because of the courage of its people.
For 50 years oil has been pumped from beneath the creeks, swamps and forests of the Delta, an area about the size of Scotland.
It has earned the Nigerian government billions of pounds. Yet the communities in the Delta say they continue to live in poverty.
Most of the promised development projects, like schools, roads and electricity supplies, have failed to materialise. Instead, they say, their land and water have been polluted by oil spills and their air ruined by the constant burning-off of natural gas.
There is an apocryphal story often told about the origin of the disquiet in the Delta. In the 1990s the then military ruler, Sani Abacha, invited people from the Delta to the new purpose-built capital, Abuja.
When they saw its huge, well-ordered roads, bridges and high-rise buildings, they realised what the oil money could do, and how little of it they saw.
And so the trouble began.
Oil theft There are plenty of guns in Nigeria and plenty of gunmen in the Delta.
Some are interested in the political conflict, some in robbery and extortion.
Some, according to human rights groups, are paid and armed by politicians to help rig elections.

Then there is the highly lucrative and illegal business of oil bunkering, the siphoning-off of oil from well heads and pipelines to sell on the black market.
It is a racket estimated to be worth several billion pounds a year.
And it is a large, well-run and at times an international operation.
Last year, two Nigerian rear admirals were court-martialled for their part in the attempted theft of thousands of tons of Nigerian oil by an international crime syndicate operating in Eastern Europe.
River maze
In the unspectacular sprawl of concrete buildings that is the town of Warri, I met a tall young boat captain called Henry.
He was dressed immaculately in chinos and a white shirt. He held a mobile phone in one hand, and a Bible in the other.
Like many, he had just spent his Sunday morning in church. He assured me it was safe to go onto the waterways up to a point.
We sped along the river in a thin wooden boat heading deeper into the Delta, skipping over the brow salt water dotted with the floating green clumps of water hyacinths.
Both banks, about a mile apart, were lined with dense green mangrove forests.
Occasionally a clearing would reveal a small village of wooden huts and canoes pulled up on the muddy banks.
And on the horizon, a plume of orange flame marked the site of an oil installation burning off natural gas.
Creeks and inlets snaked off from the river in all directions, forming the ma
maze of the Delta, accessible only to those with local knowledge.
Undelivered promises

After 40 minutes we arrived at the village of Ekirimo.
Its concrete jetty, the villagers insisted, was one of the few development projects they had seen reach fruition.
We walked along sandy paths, among huts of driftwood, thatched palm fronds and rusting corrugated iron, to the village chairman's hut to introduce ourselves.
The village was called to a meeting. They decided we could stay.
The chairman, John Grisbe, was a short man who looked to be in his fifties. He had a broad grizzled face and sparkling eyes. He eloquently detailed their many grievances. No clean water, no electricity, shacks falling into disrepair, unemployment. And he said they had received scant help.
The young men of the village took us to see what he was talking about.
They showed us the brackish well, the half-completed school - another promised, but undelivered, development project.
They showed us the oil-damaged nets. Fishing was their livelihood, but most of the fish had gone away, they said, because of a barge sunk near the village which was leaking oil.
Everyone we talked to condemned the violence and kidnappings.
Some said it undermined their struggle to get greater local control of the oil wealth. But many also understood why the violence took place.
As one local councillor told me, unless there is development, year after year, we will have more killings and kidnappings.
From the banks of the river, we watched as a line of six small Nigerian navy patrol boats passed by the village, heading back to their base in Warri - the military's attempts to ensure security for the oil operations.
As we ourselves headed back up the river, we rounded a bend to see the same patrol boats floundering in mid-stream, stuck on one of the hidden sandbanks.
A reminder that in the end, the gunmen know the Delta, the military do not.

by Peter Mon Feb 13, 2006 20:34

Our refugee recognition rate for refugees is one of the highest in Europe at 6.2%. Yet, our immigration system is now the worst in the world?! I have to say that the rar are really going to the extremes by demanding that no asylum seeker should have to apply for asylum but should be automatically given it. Something that lacks balance and reality in the modern day. Given the reality that among asylum sekers are also economic migrants and why we shouldn't have a system to deter economic migrants is insane.

by Richard Holden Mon Feb 13, 2006 21:04

We need a system that deters economic migrants so also do we need a system that encourages economic sense. I think common sense should be allowed to prevail in the case of these set of fathers whose children we have deemed fit to call Irish and whose wives we have considered suitable for residency. Unless we allow these fathers to stay and work, their wives and kids will continue feeding on the system.

by Peter Mon Feb 13, 2006 21:55

To say that every asylum seeker wishes to come to Ireland to work is also flaud. Among asylum seekers are economic migrants who are coming for reasons other than asylum but I would just like to know what the rar would do when it involves economic migration to this country.

by Brian Tue Feb 14, 2006 18:56

What is wrong with Economic Immigrants? Economic immigrants have the highest ability to pay income tax and as a whole they make positive net contributions. The only classes of immigrants who seem to receive more benefits than the amount of taxes they pay are refugees and their dependants and that is because refugees are admitted into the country for political and humanitarian reasons, not for their economic potentials.

by Kilian Tue Feb 14, 2006 19:12

I read the article and I do not understand why we are going back and forth on this issue. These men need to be allowed to stay, work and take care of their Irish Born Children. If these children carry Irish passports then the Irish Government needs to “respect and ensure the right(s) of each child without discrimination of any kind irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, disability, birth or other status. We need to enrich and facilitate family life. These fathers should be allowed to stay as long as they meet our health and security requirements

by Peter Tue Feb 14, 2006 21:18

"refugees are admitted into the country for political and humanitarian reasons, not for their economic potentials."

So you're saying that every single asylum seeker is coming here to work? There are also economic migrants who come here for reasons other than asylum. The rar think thats alright though!
Anything but alright.

by Femi Wed Feb 15, 2006 08:54

I think this country should learn to welcome people who are pushed into illegality by poverty or the threat of destitution. Those like Amekon, who have never experienced involuntary hunger can talk, those whose children have never died of easily preventable diseases can talk, those who haven't seen an entire generation lost (most of them your friends) in fighting over who gets what can talk. As for me, I am glad to be here and desire to work and make a good life for my self and my family, even though I very much would like to be home in Africa, for that is really where I belong.

by Ameron Wed Feb 15, 2006 20:35

Fami

As I have stated before, the African people I wish to help are in Africa. Where as you point out, they belong.

If you wish to make a life for yourself in another country, then have the manners to ask their permission to enter.

Don't bother looking for sympathy from me if you mysteriously arrive here with a story that cannot be verified and a claim for asylum that after lenghty and expensive consideration, is rejected.

If they don't believe you, neither do I.

Far too many people from your country are here, claimimg identical stories, to be just a coincidence.

Traveller

(I travelled to Ireland by sea from a port in West Africa and I was nearly dead by the time I got here.I will never advise anybody to try it. We had little food, no medicines, no warm blankets for the cold weather, sleeping quarters had no comfortable beds some people died and were thrown overboard and I wondered whether coming to Europe was worth all the trouble.)

By your own account, which I find suspect, the only way to prevent such misery is to show that we will have no business with human traffickers by proving that their customers are being sold a pack of lies.

Would you not agree that there is no point in continually rewarding human traffickers and illegal immigrants by allowing people to stay and encouraging more to die, as you state, in a vain attempt to follow?

by Femi Wed Feb 15, 2006 20:44

Amekon,
I am a Medical Doctor and I came here legally all I am trying to say is you cannot help people in Africa by driving people back to face misery.

by Ameron Wed Feb 15, 2006 21:16

If you are here legally, you are welcome.

All I am saying to you is that for the ridiculous cost of processing one bogus asylum claim, we can help hundreds in Africa.

Also, we do not have enough country to allow all those in who can claim a life of misery nor do they have any right, to appoint themselves worthy of our generousity and illegally enter this country without our permission.

As I have pointed out by means of a photo, the ones who need our help the most, cannot afford traffickers, false papers, airplanes, boats etc and it is immoral and un-christian to put them first.

http://tinyurl.com/8mh6z

The photo is from Sudan.

That's real misery. I look at it and it breaks my heart.

The well funded, well fed, well educated, well travelled, self serving people that wrote this original article do absolutely nothing for me. If anything, I resent them more for doing so.

You as an educated individual should have the moral courage to look for the truth - fearlessly.

by Peter Wed Feb 15, 2006 21:17

The usual person responded to one of my previous comments by asking: "What is wrong with economic immigrants". Somebody needs to tell this person about economic migrants coming to Ireland for reasons other than asylum because the RAR now think that that's alright! Reality check...

by Helga - FLAC Wed Feb 15, 2006 22:31

Ameron, the matter is in court so please let the courts decide whether these well funded, well educated, well fed, widely traveled, self serving people who you resent so much can stay.

by Peter Thu Feb 16, 2006 08:01

I don't 'resent' these people. You're putting words in my mouth again.....

by Helga Thu Feb 16, 2006 09:20

I am not persuaded by the argument of this group that Nigeria is such a terrible place though there is no denying the fact that life in Africa can be hard, short and brutish but as a mother myself I am persuaded by the fact that the welfare of the child is better served if both parents are together setting good examples for the kids, providing emotional and psychological support as well as working to meet the physiological needs of the family. It is for this singular reason that as a solicitor I have taken up their case.

by Observer Thu Feb 16, 2006 22:43

Could you just explain why no part of the state of Nigeria could accomodate these individuals?

by Femi Fri Feb 17, 2006 09:07

Observer, Your comment just shows how little you know about Nigeria.You can only move from one part of Nigeria to the other if you have been offered a job in that part, jobs are hard to come by in Nigeria and besides there is so much religious and ethnic animosity.There are no safety nets like you have in Europe, No free medical care, No Unemployment benefits. Igbos and Yorubas are not particularly welcomed in the North as they have been victims of pogroms on several ocassions.You relocate from one part of Nigeria to another only if you are ready to die so when you are fleeing from persecution relocating to another part of the country is not an option. I think it would interest you to know that the Federal Government rcently sent the airforce to bomb some Nigeria villages in the Niger Delta. Please there is a need for people to fully understand the issues on the ground before making comment.

by Yomi Fri Feb 17, 2006 09:29

Observer, Please read this BBC report and tell me how Nigeria differs from Iraq.
Shell has decided to review the deployment of its staff following a spate of attacks on workers based in the Niger Delta.
After four foreign workers - from the UK, US, Bulgaria and Honduras - were taken hostage by armed men in speedboats just over a week ago, the multi-national company is trying to reconcile oil production with the safety of its workers.
Nigeria is the world's eighth largest oil exporter and the biggest in Africa. Last year crude exports averaged around 2.6m barrels per day.
But Nigeria can be a particularly volatile environment for foreign workers.

Demonstrations and outbreaks of localised civil unrest and violence can occur with little notice throughout the country

Foreign Office
On Wednesday the militant group Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said that it would attack all oil companies in Nigeria and that its aim was to stop Nigeria's oil exports.
It said: "Pipelines, loading points, export tankers, tank farms, refined petroleum depots, landing strips and residences of employees of these companies can expect to be attacked.
"We know where they live, shop and where the children go to school."
When faced with such threats, what can a company do to combat any threat to its workforce?
The first step taken by Shell was to re-consider where its staff would work.
In a statement, the company said: "We continue to monitor developments in the western area of our operations in the Niger Delta and are taking necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of staff and contractors and the communities in which we operate.
'Civil unrest'
"We continue to keep staff deployment in the western Niger Delta under close review. The safety of our staff, contractors and the communities in which we operate is our top priority and we will deploy staff as conditions dictate.
"We will also return to areas evacuated when normality is restored."
But it is clear from the Foreign Office's travel advice concerning Nigeria that foreign workers are at particular risk in the country.
It points out that seven oil workers - two US and five Nigerian - were killed in an attack on their boat in April 2004.
And the advice, on the Foreign Office website, goes on: "Hostage taking for ransom has occurred in Delta, River and Bayelsa States. Local youths have occupied oil facilities, including offshore rigs, to extort money from oil companies.

In high risk areas there is quite a corporate responsibility to ensure the safety and security of individual

Tara O'Connor
"Demonstrations and outbreaks of localised civil unrest and violence can occur with little notice throughout the country."
Violent incidents have slashed Shell's production in Nigeria by some 220,000 barrels a day - almost 10% of the country's average output.
Many companies employ risk assessors in a bid to combat any threat to staff.
Tara O'Connor is one such expert.
Ms O'Connor, who works in Africa for risk assessment firm Kroll, said many oil installations are difficult to protect because they are in isolated areas and local police are overstretched.
She said: "In high risk areas there is quite a corporate responsibility to ensure the safety and security of individuals.
"Most companies that operate in the Niger Delta have sophisticated security programmes, most of which involve moving workers who are at risk in certain areas.

Nigeria is one of the biggest oil producers in the world
"And the best advice that you can give to an individual is to make sure that before they go they get a security briefing so that they are aware of the risks to expect."
But not everyone heeds this advice, according to Norman Hoppe, a consultant who has worked in Nigeria.
"The biggest problem where there are expats from comfortable countries is that many suffer from 'it won't happen to me syndrome'.
"There is a tendency to view those giving advice as melodramatic and reject what they say."
He said many expats fail to heed advice until it is too late or they have either fallen foul of crime themselves, or those close to them have been robbed violently.
But Mr Hoppe had words of reassurance for westerners intending to relocate to countries which were struggling to cope with civil unrest.
"The advice is very simple and straightforward: heed the advice from people about places that are not safe to go, be alert and use common sense in decision-making."

by Observer Fri Feb 17, 2006 16:54

Its easy to copy and paste a big chunk of words from a website but when it bores down to reality at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves a question? Is the our asylum system this fair or is it just being portrayed this way by a small number of people?

by Tadhg Fri Feb 17, 2006 17:46

Dear Observer, the asylum sytem is fair no one has said it is not. We are just asking that these group of Fathers be given an opportunity to stay because at the end of the day our system will suffer for it if they do not. is it not better for us to have them here working alongside their wives that for the women, cos of cost of child care stay permanently on welfare and besides, the sanctity of the family unit needs to be preserved in an environment where the skills of these men will help foster economic growth and development. I have lived in Nigeria and even though there is no war going on their now, living conditions are pretty hard. Taking in a few fathers who are willing to work can only serve us well.

by Observer Fri Feb 17, 2006 17:55

At least there is one person who admits that our asylum system is fair as this is the truth in this case.

by Yomi Fri Feb 17, 2006 18:10

Observer, the asylum process in Ireland may not be perfect but it is very fair. What was copied and pasted is true and is the reality on ground in Nigeria. You seem to think we have a problem with the asylum process please we do not. In fact when a lot of us got here we only came to make enquiries about family reunification but the Justice Department said we should apply for asylum and that is what prompted some of us to apply for asylum and that is also why some withdrew from the asylum process midway. We are just asking to be allowed to bring up our children here away from the troubles back home and we promise to be good citizens. That is all.

by Kilian O'grady Fri Feb 17, 2006 18:33

The social and economic cost of not allowing these fathers to stay will be enormous.

by Tony Gargan - UCD Fri Feb 17, 2006 19:37

If we do not allow these fathers to stay we are courting trouble in the long term.
Social science literature demonstrates that the root cause of poverty and income disparity is linked undeniably to the presence or absence of marriage. Broken families earn less and experience lower levels of educational achievement. Worse, they pass the prospect of meager incomes and family instability on to their children, making the effects intergenerational.
A child's path to achieving a decent income as an adult--and avoiding the poverty trap--is still the traditional one: complete school, get a job, get married. Dropping out of school, taking drugs, or having children early and outside of marriage could derail their progress at any time. Studies show that income disparity is affected most by the stability of a child's home environment--primarily, whether that child has married parents or is part of a broken family.
Consider the following:
• In 1950, 12 out of every 100 children born entered a broken family; by 1992, 58 out of every 100 children born entered a broken family.
• Children living with a single mother are six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose parents are married.
• Of families with children in the lowest quintile of earnings, 73 percent are headed by single parents; 95 percent in the top quintile are headed by married couples.
• In 1994, over 12.5 million children lived in single-parent families that earned less than $15,000 per year; only 3 million such children lived with families who had annual incomes greater than $30,000.
• Three-quarters of all women applying for welfare benefits do so because of a disrupted marriage or live-in relationship. Those who leave the welfare system when they get married are the least likely to return.
• Cohabitation doubles the rate of divorce. Cohabitation with someone other than one's future spouse quadruples the rate of divorce.
• Divorce reduces the income of families with children by an average of 42 percent. Almost 50 percent of these families experience poverty.
• Married couples in their mid-fifties amass four times the wealth of divorced individuals ($132,000 versus $33,600).
• Children in stepfamilies and single-parent families are almost three times more likely to drop out of school than are children in intact families.
Delinquency rates are above average in the poorest sections of cities. Such areas have many broken homes and a high rate of drug addict and alcoholism.
Our economy is going that is why we need to be careful because delinquency rates tend to be high among the low-income groups in societies where most people are well-to-do. The pain of being poor and living in slum conditions are felt more strongly in a rich society than in a poor one.

Justice Minister, Let these fathers stay for the sake of our own children.

by Gerard Conroy Fri Feb 17, 2006 20:03

Having read this, I get the idea that if we don't allow asylum seekers to stay then there will be trouble with blockades and attacks by protestors on the Gards and immigration officers. I would like to encourage those who campaign aginst the Government on this one to stand back and take a more intense look at why Irish people don't wish to have this situation on their doorstep. There are responsibilities for every country to tackle the problem of those who come only to take off their system. There are also a number of those who will come to ireland to work for only a few years years then will stop and start drawing the dole for the rest of their lifetime. Personally on this one, i think that the irish government is right to stop and check people more who are entering the country as it is a wake up call for all EU countries too. Nigeria may indeed have its own problems but we can't be seen as encouraging people to leave their country. We should be focusing on putting pressure on their government to do more to improve the life and quality of its citizens and to impose sanctions if the government fails to do so.

by Disgusted Fri Feb 17, 2006 20:09

Maybe it's just me, but I find the line on family break-up vis a vis legal deportations absurd.

Not one of these individuals is prevented from bringing up their families in their home country. If there are other reasons to be here, related to persecution, they will be granted asylum.

Failing that:

I don't accept that Nigeria or Africans in general are brutish or uncivilised as is suggested here. I don't accept that in the company of their fellow nationals, they are permanently disadvantaged.

To blanket portray an entire country as such,is downright racist and an insult to the humanity of those millions who continue to live there and lead happy and fulfilled lives.

by Padraig McKenna Fri Feb 17, 2006 20:45

I wish life could be happy for all of us and to unite together to fight both illegal immigration and racism. Then we would be able to all lead our country in the right direction. Two extreme sides will never solve this problem. But a referendum which people vote for by the majority is the way.

by (((i))) Fri Feb 17, 2006 22:25

in the post.

by Tony Gargan - UCD Sat Feb 18, 2006 04:41

We can bloody well say these fathers should not stay but have we thought carefully about the long term effect of not letting them stay.I am a Social Scientist that is why I am concerned.

by Objective Observer Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:58

Ameron. Observer, Peter and the rest,
All your racist ranting will not help. We will all have ourselves to blame if at the end of the day for lack of proper care due to the absence of fathers these kids end up being delinquent, then we would have created more problems than we intended to solve in the first place. I am in total agreement with Tony Gargan that we just might unknowingly create a resentful group of delinquents when these children grow up.

by Clear understanding Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:13

‘’As I have pointed out by means of a photo, the ones who need our help the most, cannot afford traffickers, false papers, airplanes, boats etc and it is immoral and un-christian to put them first’’
Ameron, you do not have an understanding of how things work in Africa. In Africa, a community will identify a gifted child and with communal effort send him to school. if after graduation that child is unable to find work the community will again put all their savings and pay for the child’s passage to Europe, with the hope that when the child settles down he will be able to assist other member of the community. That is how some of these illegal immigrants are able to afford thousands of Euros to come to Europe.

by Padraig McKenna Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:41

I can see where one is getting angry at the fact that illegal immigration must stop, while on the other hand, I can see where one is getting angry at the fact that some people are allowed to stay on in the country. We must not seek to have this brought into a war of words but should be addressing this issue more chorduarily to one another and understanding ones differing opinion. A referendum by where people vote in the majority is the way to understand all this. While a substantial amount wish for a particular thing, the present wish of the majority is to have these laws. It would be a good thing for people not to be angry at one another but to understand one another. Afterall, we are all born equal human beings.

by Jameel Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:09

I am sad that this matter is like Nigeria matter, please I am Somali and have same problem of not been allowed to stay and take care of wife and children.Somalia not safe at all. My child born here and has passport, my wife get residency but me just come now Minister say go back.

by Lioamze Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:17

I am an asylum seeker too and I understand Irelands right to have a law on asylum. I thinkk it would be bad idea for Ireland to give the less deservful asylum. I am happy to apply for asylum through the countrys procedure.

by Tony Gargan - UCD Sun Feb 19, 2006 18:01

If these fathers do not stay we just might be creating problems for ourselves.

A survey of 108 rapists undertaken by Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky revealed the 60 percent came from female-headed homes,. 70 percent of those describable as 'violent' came from female-headed homes. 80 percent of those motivated by 'displaced anger' came from female-headed (single-parent) homes.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing R. Knight and R. Prentky, The Developmental Antecedents and Adult Adaptations of Rapist Subtypes, 14 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 403-426 (1987).

Of the juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, three-fourths came from broken homes.
Ramsey Clark, Crime in America: Observations on Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Control (New York: Pocket Books, 1970), p.39. Cited in Amneus, The Garbage Generation

A 1987 study found that regardless of the economic status, the disrupted family - posed the strongest correlation with robbery rates in American cities larger than 100,000 population.
Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing R.J. Sampson, "Crime in Cities: The Effects of Formal and Informal Social Control," Crime and Justice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Cited in "Divorce: A Hazard to Your Health?" p. 16.

Studies have shown that there is a strong correlation with the number of single parent families and the crime rate in a cities with a population over 100,000 regardless of the socioeconomics or racial composition of the city.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19 citing R. Sampson, Crime in Cities: The Effects of Formal and Informal Social Control. In M. Tonry & Morris, Crime and Justice 271-301 (1987).

The rate of violent crime and burglary is related to the number of single parent households with children aged twelve to twenty.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing Douglas A. Smith, G. and Roger Jarjoura, Social Structure and Criminal Victimiazation, 25 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27-52 (1988).

A study showed that over half (53 percent) of the inmates of state correctional facilities had grown up without the benefits of a two parent household.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing B. Chapman, Fairness For Families: An Organing Theme for the Administration's Social Policies, 2 The Journal of Family and Culture 23 (1986).

Delinquency rates are 10 to 15 percent higher in broken homes than in intact ones.
Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing Edward L. Wells and Joseph H. Rankin, "Families and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes," Social Problems, 38:1, p. 87.

"The greater the proportion of single-mother families in a neighborhood, the higher the delinquency rate."
Don Terry, "Killed by Her Friends, Sons of the Heartland," New York Times, 18 May 1994, A1. Cited on page48 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher
Fatherless youth at higher risk for jail - study
Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to
end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families,
according to a new study released Thursday. Cynthia Harper of the
University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton
University tracked a sample of 6,000 males aged 14-22 from 1979-93.
They found that those boys whose fathers were absent from the
household had double the odds of being incarcerated - even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.

I strongly think McDowell should avoid a situation where he will knowingly create tomorrows crime lords.

by Lioamze Sun Feb 19, 2006 20:47

I am in the process of applying for asylum and I believe in applying for it this way. I understand Irelands right to have a law on asylum and I respect their citizens decision to stop bogus asylum seekers from subverting its asylum systemm. I think it only fair for an asylum seeker to apply the proper way for asylum because if Ireland starts accepting bogus asylum seekers then it might be creating problems for itself tomorrow

by Helga Mon Feb 20, 2006 08:30

Liamoze, these guys respect and understand Ireland's Immigration and Asylum law. What they are applying for is family reunification and an opportunity to bring up their children in a country that is relatively safe and where human rights standards conform to international standards. I have spoken to these people and they have been humble and gone about actualizing their goal objectively and lawfully. The issue is about the right of the Irish Children to live in this country with the protection of both parents.
If you want to apply for asylum go to ORAC on Lower Mount street.

by Wade Horn(Phd) Mon Feb 20, 2006 17:42

If indeed it is true that the Justice Minister has given some women residency and at the same time he is not willing to allow the fathers stay then he is unfit for office. I have done extensive research on family structure and delinquency and some of my findings are:
1. Among long-term prison inmates, 70 percent grew up without fathers, as did 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder.

2. Fatherless children are three times more likely to fail school, require psychiatric treatment and commit suicide as adolescents.

3. They are also up to 40 times more likely to experience child abuse compared with children growing up in two-parent families.

For the good of us all Mr. McDowell should not give us a society full of rapist and violent criminals. He should seriously have a rethink because the social cost would be enormous.

by Frankie Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:12

You can't have exceptions for anyone just because they claim excuses. Let them go through the procedure to find out if their case is true. Now wheres the problem with that?

by Helga Tue Feb 21, 2006 07:46

Thanks frankie that is exactly what we are saying. This issue is not about legislating for every bad case it is about using the laws of the land to determine whether these fathers can stay which is the reason why we have gone to court.

by lincoln Tue Feb 21, 2006 20:24

there seems to be some confusion in the way people are recognised in this society. From what i can see, majority of the fathers came into ireland with the hope of being recognised and integrated after proper checks and confirmation are carried out but are pushed into the asylum process despite the fact that their spouses and children have been recognised legally in the state. I wish the justice ministry could look into ways of allowing family reunification as its done in other countries.

Were adequate systems put in place for this parents to apply for the IBC/05 from other states other than ireland which could have given them legal entry to join their families? NO!

Now that they are here, should we send them back if there asylum application fail and continue to support single women parent families to bring up future irish men?

The IBC/05 initiative was taken to plu some holes in the immigration system and i believe that the country should reap the full benefit by letting ths fathers stay with their family and address the issues of other parents who are elsewhere no matter where they are so as to put this issues to rest.

LET THE IRISH FATHERS WHO WISH TO JOIN THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN DO SO AND HELP OUR FUTURE MULTI CULTURAL IRELAND.

I BELIEVE IT IS NOT TOO LATE FOR THEM TO BE RESPONSIBLE FATHERS OF THEIR CHILDREN

by Joanne Wed Feb 22, 2006 16:01

Let the Irish people decide on how they wish to govern their country with the immigration laws. Its unchristian to force a decision on another country without the people of that country being allowed to decide first. Fathers or not, I generally believe that it doesn't come into the equation just because a relative is permitted to stay in another country. Would their relatives here not wish to join them back in their (home) country if they are split up? Wouldn't that be a better idea? I'm sure then, you won't hear them complaining about being split up. Will you?

by SH Wed Feb 22, 2006 16:31

The children are Irish and what you are suggesting is to force them out of their own country. The issue is about giving those children the right to grow up with the protection of both their parents a right which all Irish children should have.

by Lioamze Wed Feb 22, 2006 22:52

Yes and we must respect the right and rights of Ireland people to have its asylum rulles and this would be a good thing I like to apply for asylum through the correct proccess. I do not believe in jumping the queue because this would not go down well for asylum seekers who are official instead of non official ones

by Helga Thu Feb 23, 2006 08:28

Lioamze,
Did you say you are in the country and thinking of applying for asylum?If that is the case then you do not qualify to contribute to this debate as you have broken the law already.The issue here is not about you it is about people who have come from countries that are not safe but sincerely desire to raise their children in a safe country and are committed to working, abiding by our rules and contribute something positive to our economy.

by lincoln Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:43

the law of ireland concerning the right(s) of irish children is very clear and unambigous' all irish children have the right to a good family life and to the company of their parents' unless there are different laws for different children.Either we address this issue now before it grows into a canker worm in the future.

I have spoken to some of this men and are only asking to be reunified with their families and lead a good family life.Majority of them are graduates in differrent disciplines, some with 3 to 4 kids with their wives bearing all the load yet part of the condition put in the residency given to the wives is that the renewal of their stay might be dependent on their economic viability; i wonder how the justice minister expect this women to do this when the husbands are locked up in hostels, being fed and are only allowed a visit to their families once in a month.

i think there are some anomalies which needs to be addressed, it is my opinion to allow the fathers join their families with a view of granting them residency to work and support their families. Sending this men of will surely have serious consequences viz prostitution, crime, deliquent children, broken homes, lack of confidence, etc

by Joanne Thu Feb 23, 2006 20:04

Why request that Irish people become a minority in their country? Some people talk about the wonders of a multicultural society. Ireland couldn't be multiculturalier

by leycon Thu Feb 23, 2006 20:12

you seem to forget one fact that majority of the women came to seek refuge in ireland in the first instance or do you which to commit a crime against humanity.Some of these people were well to do and were living comfortably if not for the different reasons that made them leave all that behind to seek asylum with nothing to fall back to if returned. i was an accountant in an oil company while my wife was a marketing executive with well paid jobs and official cars and properties which were razed downand destroyed by the occult threatening my family life. Dont you think i will wish to continue in that life if i could survive in another part of my country.I had to send my wife and kid out to a safe country with all i had when we fled and waited to do menial jobs in another african countrytill i have enough to get myself here .I will forever be grateful to the people of ireland for granting my family peace and a place to live with a hope for the future.

the irish people have already spoken and what was said is that the parents of ibc should be granted residence, the arguement is that this parents are not being granted that which the irish people wanted because they could not 'force' their way into this country to apply within the 3 months allowed.

It is also unchristian to break up families especially when it is not the wish of the couples

by leycon Thu Feb 23, 2006 20:23

look all around you and check countries with multicultural set up USA, UK, Canada France etc, the indigenes are stil the major determinant and controller, none has become a minority. Rather multiculturality has helped a lot of countries to maximize their full potentials. Even other countries are moving into these direction or why do you these economies attract the best brains. Different people with different abilities.

Check out the blacks in america in sports, music etc; the blacks and asians in the medical corp in the major economies. The world is a global village

by Yomi Sun Feb 26, 2006 14:08

We are Nigerians; we come from a nation with a wealth of stunning cities full of compelling stories.
The aesthetic appeal of the nation’s capital city is undeniable, people who knew Abuja before now cannot help but salute its reinvention into a scenic and livable community. Small and dazzling, she is one of the true jewels of our glorious country, Abuja abounds in unique beauty.
Lagos is the former capital of Nigeria; past and present harmonize sweetly in this vital city. You can surf on the shimmering Atlantic Ocean its panoptic water enchanting surfers with the deliciously disorienting sensation that they've become one with the sea. The sheer, exuberant beauty of the beaches make people come for inspiration and renewal.
Port Harcourt is the oil city. In this charmed city, the urban and the pastoral gracefully mingle in a uniquely Nigerian way.
The Nigerian Countryside is beguiling and boasts of colorful residents and fauvist sunset, lush green forest stretching unbroken in every direction. You will feel doubly awed: by my country's magnificent nature.
Nigeria is gorgeous with breathtaking scenery, filled with flowers, trees and free-flowing springs.
Why then are we here, despite the superb sunrises and sunsets; warm, calm water, white-sandy meditative beaches… , lovely Mountains, wide open spaces and beautiful wildlife.
We are here because our country is not the perfect place for long walks at sunset unless you have a death wish. Violent crimes committed by ordinary criminals, as well as by persons in police and military uniforms, occur throughout the country.
We are here because The Political elite in Nigeria do not obey the decisions of the courts and the president has openly endorsed violence as a means of governance. With the support of the President, the police have flagrantly set themselves above and against the judiciary; politicians in Nigeria use the Police to enforce private political vendettas.
If the president had not mangled the constitution and turned its polluted pulp into a weapon of offence against the rights and legitimate expectations of the people I definitely would not be here. We would ordinarily not give up living in a country that has the potential to be one of the most beautiful and romantic places in the world.
We are Nigerians forced to trade the beauty of Nigeria for the Peace, Security and beauty of Ireland. God bless the Republic of Ireland.

by Enda Sat Mar 04, 2006 08:32

We do not seem to realize that when these children grow up, they can sue the Government of Ireland for deny them the opportunity of the society of their fathers. Yes we might want to argue that these fathers could have taken their families back to Nigeria or wherever in Africa but all they will have to prove is that Nigeria is not a safe country and that their welfare would best be served here. I am sure even an idiot will not have any problems proving that.

by Sarah Sat Mar 04, 2006 13:26

Our national children’s strategy recognizes as its operational principle that the family generally affords the best environment for raising children and any external intervention should be to support and empower families.
At the launch of the plan in November 2003, Minister Lenihan remarked that its vision was “An Ireland… where all children are cherished and supported by family and the wider society; where they enjoy a fulfilling childhood and realsie their potential.

Mr. McDowell has to introduce statutory rights for family reunification for Irish children and their migrant parents. We should have an equal and fair application process that will provide a meaningful and thriving family life for them within Irish society.

by Brian Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:42

I think our country’s economic boom is making us selfish and arrogant and this is something that runs against the grain of decency and humanity that we as a nation have always prided ourselves on.
Now that we have become a successful nation we seem to have forgotten that our constitution provides particular protection to the family as the principal and fundamental unit of the society. The Supreme Court in the Fajujonu case in 1990 held that children “had a constitutional right to the company care and parentage of their parents within a family unit”. Where an Irish child has an absolute right to remain in Ireland, and can never be deported, and at least one of their parents is legally resident in the state, it would require compelling and overwhelming reasons in an individual case to justify the denial of the rights to the company and care of the other parent so that they can be raised within a family unit.

by Legalese Mon Mar 13, 2006 14:46

There not much point quoting Fajujonu in isolation.

Extract follows:

The citizenship referendum followed a period of heated debate on the meaning of citizenship and the terms on which migrant families would be allowed to remain in Ireland. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in the Fajujonu case that Irish citizen children had the right to the“company, care and parentage” of their parents within a family unit. Subject to the exigencies of the common good, this right could be exercised within the State, with parents asserting achoice of residence on behalf of their children.

Following on from the Fajujonu judgment, non-national parents were routinely granted the right to remain in Ireland on the basis of the children’s right to the “company, care and parentage” of their parents. This practice was to change in early 2003. In January 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in the L. and O. cases that the automatic right of residence granted to the parents of Irish born children, regardless of the legal status of the parents, could no longer be sustained.

The common good required that restrictions be imposed on citizen children’s right to family life and to their right to the “company, care and parentage” of their parents within the State. At the time of the Supreme Court judgment, more than 11,500 applications for residence from parents with Irish citizen children were pending. The judgment provoked widespread confusion and fear amongst migrant families. Predictions that the Supreme Court’s judgment would stem the flow of inward migration to the State,however, failed to materialise.

The Government decided, therefore, to take further action. In June 2004, a referendum was held to amend the Constitution so as to restrict the entitlement to citizenship for children born to non-national parents. By a majority of almost four to one, the electorate voted to amend the Constitution, removing the right to citizenship from future generations of Irish born children who could not demonstrate generations of belonging to the State.

http://www.tjsl.edu/downloads/Siobh%C3%A1n%20Mullally.pdf

by Tadhg Mon Mar 13, 2006 16:44

We can quote all the cases under the sun it does not remove the fact that the onus is on this government to ensure that the constitutional right of Irish Children and the legal and human rights of their migrant parents are respected that is the only way we can put this monster (which is our own creation) to rest.

by Alex Fri Mar 17, 2006 21:29

Not having a provision for family reunification in the IBC/05 administrative scheme is rather malicious on the part of the Justice Minister.

Family unity should be the central focus in the formulation of any policy as it constitutes a universally recognized right of the family to protection by society and the state and is critical for social stability and integration.

The universal declaration of human rights defines family as “ the natural and fundamental group unit of society…entitled to protection by society and the state” A number of the other international and European Legal Instruments similarly uphold family unity and protection. The protection of the family is equally recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights and further emphasized in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of human Rights.

by Lady Bracknell Fri Mar 17, 2006 22:23

I'm wondering if some clever legal eagle could frame a case based on the constitutional 'protection of the family' provisions

Article 41 the state promises to "protect the family" and its "imprescriptable rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law". Under the same article the state must ensure economic circumstances do not oblige a mother to work outside of the home. The provision also guarantees that in the event of divorce adequate financial provision must be made for any children and for both spouses.

Article 41 states, inter alia that:

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, .."

" .. guarantees to protect the Family .."

"… endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity .. "

"… guard with special care the institution of Marriage, "

Article 41 the state promises to "protect the family" and its "imprescriptable rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law". Under the same article the state must ensure economic circumstances do not oblige a mother to work outside of the home. The provision also guarantees that in the event of divorce adequate financial provision must be made for any children and for both spouses.

but since your wives don't appear to be citizens this may not be possible. I suggest they apply for citizenship ASAP

by TeeJay Sun Mar 19, 2006 18:43

I came in with a Valid Visa which I got in the United State of America haven completed my MBA programme at MIT Boston. I applied for residency based on parentage of an Irish born child and my form was returned to me with a covering letter saying my application was late and so cannot be considered under the IBC/05 Administrative Scheme, fair enough but to my surprise two weeks later I was given a deportation order even though my Visa remains valid up till this moment.Is this the way things are done here?

by Lady Bracknell Sun Mar 19, 2006 22:15

YES

You thought when they said 'Ireland of the welcomes' they meant YOU? :-)

get a lawer and fight it.
Alternatevely pay my way through law school and I'll fight it on your behalf.

what I learned through travelling and meeting 'working-class' Irish in places like Kilburn and Birmingham is that the Irish are some of the most racist people in the world, which given the fact that they've been on the recieving end of tons of it themselves is a little ironic, dontcha think?

by Duine Mon Mar 20, 2006 16:23

Is féidir a maíomh gur olc an claonchiníochas.

Scríobh WH Auden:

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Ní a little ironic é ach an fhírinne

by sharon Fri Apr 07, 2006 15:50

If America was so hard heartened like the Irish society, the illegal immigrant in USA would not have the chance to get the Citizenship but since some countries no how to help people who are in dire need, thats what USA has done.

They never thought of deporting the illegal Irish citizens but gave them a chance to stay in their country, so what's wrong with this irish society? Why in the first place send a delegate to compromise with USA while you are failing just to do the same in your country?

by blaise Fri Apr 07, 2006 16:20

Lady, I see no irony in your statement regarding working class Irish who you have found to be racist, when in fact, as you say, they have experienced racism in the past. It is quite simple. All cultures have an intrinsic fear of other cultures - espêcially when they fear their own culture being threatened by takeover. Anywhere you would go in the world, you would find this. Do you believe that if a bunch of white people moved in on a quiet black African village - that the villagers there would not be racists? Do you think the Polish people would like a bunch of Irish people moving in and taking their jobs and demanding equal rights to the Poles? Please. There is no irony. It's just normal tribal behaviour.

When you use the term 'racism' do you really mean 'racism' or are you just referring to common biases? Many cultures despise each other but they don't actually affect each other's access to equality. My black friends tell me there are many in their community who are unjustifiably filled with hate for anything white that moves. Are these working class Irish you refer to simply displaying biased behaviour without actually depriving the intented victims of equal rights?

Where do you think the term 'tolerant society' came from? One is basically asked to tolerate - not approve, or like - just tolerate. Actually there is no way around toleration. It keeps us from butchering each other and I'm a vegetarian.

by sharon Fri Apr 07, 2006 16:44

blaise,

You are talking in those terms because you are celebrating that your fellow brothers and sisters in USA have been granted a permission to stay in the country, what about the majority of people who are in this country who doesnt even know their fate? Think twice before you make such a comment.

One thing for sure I know is people in africa are not racists. They know how to welcome strangers and for sure maybe because you havent been in africa thats why you are saying so. Whether white or black we are all human and deserve the same rights. When Ireland was just a poor country, was there no irish people going out of this country to go to other countries?

by blaise Fri Apr 07, 2006 16:58

give me a break, Sharon. Blacks are just as racist as Whites. The Irish are every bit are welcoming as people in Africa are. Yes, I have been there. I have experienced bigotry there, as well as in England and in Canada, and most definitely in the United States. As far as racism goes, I have experienced that in England and Canada - deprived of work when I was more qualified than the indigents - but you know something - I perfectly understood that - unlike the politically correct eejits of this universe - it wasn't my country - my home base - and who am I too get picked over the people who are from those countries - a little humility and realty goes a long way. You oughta try it.....

by Reality Sat Apr 08, 2006 01:56

Sharon,
Around 70,000 asylum seekers have arrived in this country over a very short period of time. More than 30% of them came from Nigeria alone.
The Irish authorities have repatriated less than 1% of those arrivals so far.

Now I just wonder for example what would happen in Nigeria (with a population 32 X times the size of Ireland’s) if the equivalent numbers of 2.4 Million Irish people were to make their way over there in order to lay claim to asylum.

Quite frankly having visited there on more than one occasion, I would very much doubt that they would roll out the red carpet. Would you?

by T2 Sun Apr 09, 2006 08:30

Reality,
If 2.4million Irish decide to seek asylum in Nigeria I am sure the Nigerian people will welcome them openly and roll out the red carpet.So also will you be welcomed by Abject Poverty and Squalor, hunger, death from preventable diseases, Police brutally, Power outage, lack of portable drinking water, lack of basic infrastructure and being white you will be targets for kidnappers and ritual killers.

by phm Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:51

You must really be joking.

If these Nigerian men actually establish that they have well-founded fear of persecution through our UN approved asylum-process they would, of course, have a right to remain here as refugees.

My understanding however is that they have either failed to submit themselves to the asylum process, or that our UN approved asylum process has deemed their claims to be without substance or credibility.

Having avoided or failed the asylum process, they are now claiming exemption from the law on the grounds that they have allegedly fathered an Irish child. They are claiming that they have some right to 'family-reunification' which they can exercise in the country of their own choice!

As I have previously explained, these Nigerian men are in no different position to the common situation where 'inter-national' families split up and one or other partner wishes to go home to their own country. Difficult decisions have to be made. In this case, the women concerned will have to decide whether their priority is 'family reunification' or the benefits of Irish residency for themselves and their child.

You will also remember that, in spite of the Supreme Court decision which stated that these Nigerian women had no right to remain in Ireland, the Minister for Justice, in an act of considerable compassion, allowed most of them to remain here. He also put a very reasonable condition on their availing of this exemption - that if 'family-reunification' was their priority they would have to exercise it in Nigeria.. He also said his decision was final. Despite this, his compassion is now being flung back in his face. Once bitten.......as they say!

By the way, Is there anything about the word 'final' that these men don't understand?

by Phil Mon Apr 10, 2006 08:54

These fathers of Irish Born Children should go back to their countries so that they can make way for the 50, 000 Ilegal Irish immigrants in America, afterall our economy is booming and they face no persecution here.Just as we do not want these fathers here so also do the American people not want our own people.

by Killian Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:58

If we do not allow these fathers to stay it will amount to cutting off the nose to spite the face. There are two things that can possibly happen
1.These fathers go back and leave their kids here and these kids because of lack of fatherly care end up taking to crime.
2. These fathers take their wives and kids back to Africa where they become susceptible to bad influences then these kids return here when they are of age and take to crime. Let us not forget these kids cary Irish Passports.
These might be worst case scenarios but these scenarios are also great posibilities.

by phm Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:00

Well Killian, you have made two very very politically-incorrect assertions.

1. You suggest that the children of single-parents are somehow destined to become delinquents.

2. You suggest that African society is little more than a nursery for criminals.

Shame, shame on you!

by Killian Wed Apr 12, 2006 14:52

Phm,
Social Science research has found that children in single-parent or
other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or
delinquent acts.

Most African Societies are rural and poor.Experts have also adduced that delinquency rates tend to be high among the low-income groups in societies.

Social science literature demonstrates that the root cause of poverty and income disparity is linked undeniably to the presence or absence of marriage. Broken families earn less and experience lower levels of educational achievement. Worse, they pass the prospect of meager incomes and family instability on to their children, making the effects intergenerational.

by Duncan Tue Apr 25, 2006 19:07

In recent years our country has become more diverse and what it means to be Irish is endlessly evolving. What has to remain constant however is the imperative to cherish all the children of this nation equally. Good policies that have a positive impact on children today are an investment in the society of the future. The financial and social costs of poor policy, resulting in a failure to secure children’s healthy development, are high and will be borne by everyone not just the parents of the children but the entire society at large.

by blaise Wed Apr 26, 2006 04:49

diversity is a great thing but this is a little country beseiged by immigration at the moment and we need to halt the proceeding and take time out to delve into the consequences of our actions and policies regarding the importation of poor souls from other countries. Please don't use children to get on the underside of this dilemna. Sure we need cheap labour to keep this machine humming and it's inevitable that we will import foreigners to do these jobs as well as skilled workers from those countries as well. But we still need to keep the place Irish. Larger countries like Canada can assimilate all kinds of ethnic groups because the country was basically taken over from its indigenous populus. This is a numbers problem, pure and simple and needs to be addressed without using children as a smokescreen for the real problem, which is the protection of a race of people. There is nothing racist about this sentiment. All of the immigrants would be as protectionist in their own countries were it to be blosoming economically as ours is now.

by Tim Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:00

Blaise, this situation is peculiar and it is about the right of the child. It is about the Irish Child’s right to the company and care of his or her family. It is imperative that the needs and rights of the child inform the decision whether or not to deport the migrant parents of these children. The best interest of the child must be the paramount consideration.

by blaise Wed Apr 26, 2006 16:39

sorry, Tim, I love children as much as the next guy, and I would probably melt if faced with the child and mother pleading for clemency but I feel we are being pissed upon regardless of what we do. There are a great many cases known now of Islamic men who around the age of First Communion dart off to Morocco or Algeria or some Sharia-law governed country with their little boy (rarely a girl) never to return - leaving the poor Irish women childless. They want to live here for the benefits but they will leave it just as easily - and by the way in these cases - the woman has very little chance of getting her kid back. Where the Irish are actually liberal-minded regarding inter-racial marriage - most Muslim families (for example) are contemptuous of their sons marrying outside their race, religion and culture. Basically we are saying - come in - do as you want - use the child as leverage - and we dare not say anything negative for fear of sounding racist. These cultures coming in here are well aware of our frailties, unlike their own cultures, who rule with an iron fist.

by artemis Wed Apr 26, 2006 22:57

After the famous supreme court case, the mothers of these children had no legal right to remain in ireland. However I understand that the minister for justice agreed to give them compassionate leave to stay provided they agreed that if family-reunification was their priority they would have to exercise it back in Nigeria or wherever. They agreed to this condition.

Now we have these guys, who claim to be the fathers of these children, and who have no right to be here whatsoever, saying they have a right to stay here on so-called family-reunification grounds.

I have read elsewhere in this blog that under international law there is only a right to family-reunification in a country where both parents have a right to reside. The women concerned also agreed to this. There are also no safety issues, the people involved never having applied for asylum, or where they did, their applications were unfounded.

It seems to me that having made a generous concession, the minister for justice must feel pretty much stabbed in the back by these people. He must regret his act of compassion. I have no doubt that as a result he will not be making too many more exceptions to the rules - particular with regard to these guys. Once bitten ............! The big problem is that as a result he will now probably be far more reluctant to make any concessions - even to more deserving groups or individuals.

These guys and the people who so thoughtlessly supported them (Certainly, to no avail) will have a lot to answer-for.

by Murphy Thu Apr 27, 2006 13:20

Was the IBC/05 Administrative Scheme borne out of the fact that the Justice Minister felt it necessary to preserve the rights of the Irish Children of Migrant parents? If so, then why the half measure? What common good and protection of the state and society would be served by deporting one parent and allowing the other to stay?

by brian Thu Apr 27, 2006 13:57 j_crog at yahoo dot co dot uk 0862138215

It is always said that the only permanent thing in life is change and it is also sweet when it is for the better. The granting of residence to parents of children born in ireland was a decicion of the Irish people for the common good and future of the nation, they did not put a time limit as to when a biological parent can be recognised as a parent or whether only one parent will be allowed; i think the whole problem is caused by the minister of justice.

Let us remember that economic well being without a good and well behaved populace free of crime amount to nothing. Let us learn from the experience of others. We should not be seen as a society that is only welcoming for economic reasons while raising deliquent children within by sending this parents back while welcoming economic migrants from other countries; or does the number not matter to this other sets of people even if they are irresponsible.

by artemis Thu Apr 27, 2006 18:10

The answer to your question is simple.

You cannot maintain the integrety of the asylum process while sending out the message that anyone who objects to deportation will, if they are persistent enough, get leave to stay.

Having made a generous concession, subject to a condition the women concerned fully and freely accepted, the minister finds that instead of receiving thanks, he has just encouraged a raft of claims for more concessions.

The lesson will have been learned. Don't make concessions. You will only get them thrown back in your face and encourage further special pleading.

In any case, the minister made it clear that he is not for turning as far as these guys are concerned and his decision is final (It is well known in Dept of Justice circles that McD is mightily pissed-off by these guys and is determined to make them an example 'pour discourager des autres', so to speak.

by artemis Thu Apr 27, 2006 22:22

The mothers of these children had no legal right to remain in Ireland. Despite this, the government granted them leave to stay in Ireland on compassionate grounds, subject to one condition: If family reunion was their priority they would have to exercise it back home in Nigeria or wherever they come from. The women all agreed to this condition. Each and every one of them.

There is nothing onerous about this condition. None of the adults concerned are refugees. They are perfectly free to go back home. As for the implication that the children will become delinquents if these guys are not allowed stay - Ignoring the rather unsavoury slur on single mothers and their children, and the hint of moral blackmail - they can be two-parent families back home, if that is their priority. No one or nothing is stopping them.

In any case, if appears that the authorities have made up their minds on this one.

by Aoife Fri Apr 28, 2006 06:00

The issue here should not be about making scapegoat out of a bunch of Africans it should be about doing what is right for the society.
I should think it will be a lot easier for the families to be economically viable if both parents are here complementing each other and at the same time we will be avoiding the pitfalls generally associated with children from single parent families.

by Mickel Hellberg Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:21

Aoife,

They (the women concerned) agreed that their priority was to stay in Ireland - not family reunification! That was the deal struck with Michael Mc Dowell....they are now trying to go back on their end of the bargain. None of these individuals are refugees - they are free to return to Nigeria and play happy families there.

by phm Fri Apr 28, 2006 21:56

Well Aoife, what ARE the pitfalls of single-parent families? We are all ears.

by Maeve Fri Apr 28, 2006 23:08

Why in God’s name are we making an issue out of a non issue? Let McD grant these men residency so that he can get on with more important things. There is so much work out there which we Irish would not do but these men will gladly take and work as if their whole lives depend on it. I think we should be looking at what we can gain as a nation from a situation like these instead of wasting time bothering about who is throwing what back in the Minister’s face.

by Aoife Fri Apr 28, 2006 23:23

Phm,
Please find below a link as per your request

by Leila Sat Apr 29, 2006 02:39

Please allow me to initially provide some statistics drawn from the UNHCR.

Asylum Applications and some recognition rates for Nigerian Nationals years 2000-2005

• Austria-: 7,399 Final Recognition Rate 0.7%
• France -: 5,478 Final Recognition Rate 6.9%
• Germany-:4,299 Final Recognition Rate 0.7%
• Spain-: 6,965 Final Recognition Rate 1.2%
• Switz-: 2,667 Final Recognition Rate 0.7%
• UK-: 5,914 Final Recognition Rate 0.3%
• Sweden-: 1,284 Final Recognition Rate 0.2%
• Netherlands 2,031 Final Recognition Rate 0.8%

• Ireland-: 17,076 Final Recognition Rate 4.1%

• Canada-: 4,037 Unknown
• USA -: 640 Unknown

Now it would seem that it was the good ladies alone who initially travelled the 3,000 or so miles to the little island of Ireland, before entering a claim for Political Asylum under the terms of the Geneva Convention as did 17,000 other Nigerians during that same period.
Of course with no direct transport links between the two countries, this must have been a most arduous journey not without considerable expense and certainly could not have been straightforward via transit points in other countries.

Even despite the fact that their asylum applications were subsequently found to be unsubstantiated, a special exception was nonetheless made for them as they had given birth to children during the time they spent in our lengthy asylum process.
A further legal exception is now being requested because their spouses (Not asylum applicants) failed to fulfil their part of the deal, which was simply to make application to join their spouses prior to March 31st.

Immediately noticeable from the above, is that Ireland is by far and away the most favoured destination in the world for Nigerian asylum applicants. No other recipient country comes even close. EG Ireland received 3X times more applications than the UK, a country, with which Nigeria has much closer links economically, historically, and presently.

Questions-:

(1) Was the Geneva Convention indeed intended as a form of “de facto” resettlement and support package, for use by anybody who at their own convenience may decide to take up residency in other country of their own choosing?

(2) Should exceptions to national laws and regulations become the acceptable mode of immigration into a country of choice rather than attempts by authorities at enforcement of National sovereignty laws or any other form of border controls ?.

by Joanne Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:46

This should serve as a big lesson for Mr. McDowell; he must learn to think through all his policies. He must fully factor in to the equation all the different possibilities and scenarios that would arise as a result of his actions before granting concessions next time. Having said that I do not however, believe that the best way to fill a hole is to dig another.It makes more sense for him to allow these men stay since the situation is peculiar and restricted to people who had their children before January 1st 2005.

by brian Sat Apr 29, 2006 16:38 j_crog at yahoo dot co dot uk 0862138215

it is a pity that some of us will rather cut the nose to spite the face. The minister thought it through so well before granting these women residency; the only problem of these guys is that they could not come in before mar 31 2005, all other men that were able to were granted.

Do we ever think of the cost of sending all these women back to africa with children carrying irish passports to come back into the system when they are adults.

If the minister was so wrong , why is the entire irish machiner lobbying for the 'undocumented irish' in the US?

let the fathers stay

by phm Sat Apr 29, 2006 20:01

This discussion is in practical terms rather pointless. All the information emanating from Dept. of Justice circles is that the decision was made in respect of this group montths ago, and that the Minister is not for turning.

However, I believe that the Minister made the correct decision.

These men are not refugees. The minister had already made a generous concession. The mothers, who themselves had no right to remain in Ireland, accepted the condition that applied to the concession. This group of men have now interpreted the concession as evidence that the minister can be pressurized into making motre concessions. Presumably, had he given into their demands he would only have fed the expectation of other groups. To maintain the integrity of the asylum-proicess he had to draw the line somewhere - and he did.

These men also have a credibility problem. Presumably, if they are the parents of the children concerned, they were present at their conception. Yet these women supposedly found themselves alone in Ireland sometime later. Apparantly, the fathers-to-be didn't accompany them on their journey here - as one might presume if they were so committed to their partners and unborn children. Suddenly, now that the same women and children might become a means of entitlement to residency in Ireland, they arrive here with claims to 'family reunion' - to be exercised in Ireland, of course.

There is another issue. How do we know that these men are really the fathers of the children concerned? Do we accept every claim, however unlikely, or do we require them to vouch their bona-fides by undergoing DNA testing? You know what would happen then. Any one of this group who would have grounds for fearing the result of such a test would go straight to the RAR. The RAR would then be out on the streets protesting 'racist' DNA testing.

No, the Minister made the right decision. Ireland is witnessing a period of profound change. Under this government Ireland has accepted more foreign immigrants per-capita than any other western nation during the same period. A future of inter-communal harmony for all our children, 'native' and immigrant, depends on the integrity of the immigration-process, and breaking any connection in the minds of the public which would associate immigration with scams and illegality.

This writer welcomes refugees and other legal-immigrants, of all colours and creeds (provided they are prepared to observe the norms of our liberal and democratic society ). I also believe that entitlements should be determined in accordance with the rule of law, rather than by special-pleading.

by brian Sun Apr 30, 2006 15:54 j_crog at yahoo dot co dot uk 0862138214

Have you for a second think of the fact that these women were offered the residency conditions under duress to forgo their family life? Any woman desperately needing refuge/residency in a safe country and fearing return to the living conditions in africa would sign the condtions to protect her children.

How many categories of resident permit holders are denied family reunification, even work permit holders are entitled to family reunification. Yet the women that will raise irish children cannot exercise their rights to family life.

If i get you clearly, these men can stay if hey can proof the paternity of the irish children concerned. that would be great! and you seem to be quiet over our citizens in the US

Can you ell me if the citizenship referendum conducted in 2004 put a time limit of 3 mths or was it available to parents of irish children globally? If not then we have to attend to these peculir kind of people whenever they arrive.

by phm Sun Apr 30, 2006 16:28

No you didn't 'get' me correctly. Read it again.

My point was that, even if they had some legal claim to remain here (which they don't) they would still have a significant credibility problem. The point in mentioning this credibility issue was to underline the correctness of the Minister's decision in my opinion.

As for the alleged "duress" - There is no duress. These women are not refugees. They are either people who never claimed to be fleeing their come country, or where they chose to make claims for asylum (as each and every one was afforded the opportunity to do), their claims were deemed to be unfounded by our UN-approved and scrutinized asylum-process. If they had good reason to fear returning to their home countries they would be refugees with a right to remain here. The question of compassionate leave to stay would not arise.

by phm Sun Apr 30, 2006 18:52

Sorry Brian, I didn't address your two last questions.

1. Just as it is the right of Ireland (as expressed in the laws made by the elected representatives of the Irish people) to decide entitlement of foreigners to reside here, it is the right of the US to determine the fate of illegal Irish immigrants in the US. Of course, it is perfectly natural for Irish public representatives to lobby on behalf of Irish people wherever they are. Nigerian public representatives are free to lobby on behalf of their own constituents too.

2. The three month limit applied to foreign nationals who wished to obtain leave to remain in Ireland on the grounds that they were the father of an Irish citizen child. Irish citizens (and those with an entitlement to Irish citizenship who opt to take up their entitlement) have a right to reside in Ireland without any deadline or permission. Children of an Irish citizen parent are similarly entitled.

by brian Tue May 02, 2006 12:58

Hi Phm

i wish you could look beyond the ordinary and really understand the position of the irish people. let me remind you that the citizenship act was made for a better society and not for half measures, the minister had two choices of either to deport all non national parents of ibc or grant them leave to remain to take care and nuture this children for the common good. He rightly chose the latter but with stringent conditions.

The issue is these folks are the parents but you are saying they cease to be parents of these irish children just because they were not within the irish territory. May i remind you that laws are made for man and not man for laws.

Count youself priviledge to have a govt that will stick out its kneck to fight those who call your brethren 'illegal', many of these guys dont. I dont know if you have been to africa before or even visit the press on the net and see why these guys want to stay here with their families.

The Earth is the Lord's..........................................

May god bless you

by Rona Sun May 21, 2006 22:58

Naturally we should be anxious not to introduce measures that will act as a “pull factor” for future immigrants. But this is a limited group of people whose number is closed and so a decision to allow them stay would not affect future policy on asylum or residency.
I may be wrong, but I honestly feel that regularizing the status of these people would not impact on future Migration.

by chrisna Sat Sep 06, 2008 16:23 vanwykchrisna at yahoo dot com

i have been in ireland for almost eleven years and i have 3 kids that were born in ireland and there father is irish too but i got a letter to say that they want to deport me back to my country what can i do to stay here? PLEASE HELP ME

by Mr Alan Corcoran. Sun Sep 07, 2008 05:54

While my heart goe's out to you and your 3 Irish Born Children ,surely you must have went to Legal Adviser's
in Your Hour Of Need. The Legal Aid Board Is Spending MILLIONS OF EUROS In Order That Justice May Be
Seen To Be Done In Exceptional Circumstances Such As Your Irish Born Children's Case.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT.