Asylum-seekers are told:'Go home and lie'

[joebloggs]

Attempts by the British Government to force asylum-seekers to return home and lie about their political allegiance to avoid persecution will be challenged in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Thousands of people sheltering in Britain face deportation to some of the world's most brutal regimes if the Government wins the landmark legal battle.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/asylumseekers-are-toldgo-home-and-lie-7856649.html

[lastlid]

[I]
But the Appeal Court ruled in October 2010 that if RT, and others like her, are sent back to a country such as Zimbabwe and face interrogation about their politics, Britain could not require them to lie. The Home Office appealed, asking the Supreme Court for a final decision.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/asylumseekers-are-toldgo-home-and-lie-7856649.html

Quite word of advice / tip, rather than requirement?

[lastlid]

Mugabe, hobnobbing with some top filipinas recently.

[joebloggs]

She left the country 10 years ago and came to Britain on a student visa, later seeking asylum in 2009, saying she was afraid to go back.

i take it she claimed asylum just as her student visa was expiring :rolleyes:
you can only claim Asylum as soon as you arrive, not years later :NoNo:

[grahamw48]

This country is PATHETIC ! :doh

[andy222]

If they dont earn a minimum £18600 get rid of them.:icon_lol:

[Iani]

To take the possibly unpopular stance here - if someone made it here from Zimbabwe and immediately claimed asylum, to send him/her back with the comment to just lie about your political opinion would be like signing their death sentence.
It would be glaringly obvious that if they didn't need to lie, then what the bleep would they have left the country for in the first place. You might as well stamp "political dissident" on their forehead.

HOWEVER lets take the student visa example. This one had a good reason to be here, and there's nothing to say they couldn't return.
Maybe even better, if they have a good education, they could go to a neighbouring African state and maybe be welcomed?

Fraid in some cases, it makes you think - well the British shouldn't have been in Africa in the first place, but they built railways, infrastructure, an economy, heck even towns had insect repellent dropped at night. "Government" meant rule of law, very few police were needed and there was a marked lack of some murderous dictator in government house.
But they wanted the Brits out. You didn't want us - fine, take the consequences!

What I want to know is why a couple of years ago some white Zimbabweans were denied political asylum when it was glaringly obvious they were not only genuine, but had come to the most logical country to claim that asylum, since their near ancestors almost certainly came from Britain.

[grahamw48]

Now that we no longer rule the world can we please also stop trying to save it by turning our country into a damned air raid shelter for all and sundry ? :NoNo:

[tone]

Well said Graham:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[imagine]

we save the world and condem our own

[grahamw48]

Yet we are currently (and for at least the next 4 years) giving £260 million every year to INDIA, a country that is a nuclear power and rich enough to buy the Jaguar car company, and even more to PAKISTAN, another nuclear power.

Meanwhile we are cutting our armed forces to the bone, such that we couldn't even send 50,000 troops to Iraq again and have to rely on the Territorial Army.

I watched the pathetic idiot Defence Secretary trying to defend these actions earlier today by stating that it was targeted aid where there was a possible threat to the UK.

The biggest threat to the UK are terrorists and criminals they've already let in here and the people 'running' this country ! :angry: