British Airways Refuse To Take Illegal Immigrant Home

25th March 2014

I urge everybody to read the reader's comments at the bottom to really see how this is effecting people.


A 19-year-old student threatened with being deported to her native Mauritius has gained a last-minute reprieve after an airline refused to take her.

The deportation team had taken Yashika Bageerathi to Gatwick Airport to be put on a plane when she was returned to a detention centre.

It appears at present to be a temporary reprieve after British Airways declined to accept her on the flight according to her local MP David Burrowes, who represents Enfield, Southgate.

He has made representations to the Home Office to delay her deportation, and he said these had to be considered before she could be removed.

He added: "The Home Office will now consider all the options: whether she should be removed, all the circumstances and whether to consider her as part of her family rather than cutting her off from her family."


I'm sure that decision was made, once by her turning up here and staying illegally and then it was confirmed by the government!

http://news.sky.com/story/1231516/student-deportation-blocked-by-airline

stick her on a flight that will take her..

revoke British airways licence.....or shove its CEO in jail........

So I should think they refused to take her, 19 year old girl with her mother and family here, the MP in the middle of negotiations with the authorites! How would you like it if it was your daughter being sent to a different country where she has no-one. Bloody disgraceful.

It is not for a private company to thwart the orders of govt.
she is here illegally (over stayed visa)
she was married (therefor family is no concern)
domestic abuse is NOT a reason for asylum (its neither political or sectarian)
she is an adult not a minor.....

Well, I have my 19 grandaughter at home, and I know how much support she still needs, and it she had gone through an abusive relationship she would need even more. The airline was quite within it's rights because a decision had not been made:

He has made representations to the Home Office to delay her deportation, and he said these had to be considered before she could be removed.

So it was the immigration officials who were out of order.

Sassy wrote:Well, I have my 19 grandaughter at home, and I know how much support she still needs, and it she had gone through an abusive relationship she would need even more.   The airline was quite within it's rights because a decision had not been made:

He has made representations to the Home Office to delay her deportation, and he said these had to be considered before she could be removed.

So it was the immigration officials who were out of order.

Your family sounds like a Jeremy Kyle special edition

? What the hell are you on? The girl concerned had been through an abusive relationship, not my grandaughter.

Why was she doing A levels if she was here on a tourist visa?

I wouldn't have thought that domestic violence was a good enough reason to be granted asylum.

It amazes me that they manage to deport anyone who is here illegally, what with all the family stuff.

So, what you are saying is that any private individual (since "companies" are considered at law as such) can defy/ignore/whatever govt instructions if they dont like them...hmmm....way to go......
I LIKE anarchy

No Victor, I'm saying the immigration process had not been finished and the reason they didn't take her was because if the immigration process is not finished they are not supposed to take her. The immigration people stuffed up by trying to send her home in the middle of the process.

In any case, lets send the poor kid away to fend for herself with all her family here, she's only a bloody immigrant after all, not a frightened kid. And legally she might be an adult, but if you think 19 year olds should be sent hundreds of miles from their families, I bloody don't.

Well, domestic abuse has never been on the criteria for asylum. If it was we would be neck deep by september....
we could go on for ever with that argument...where do you draw the line

the kid bullied at school?
the guy who "doesnt get on" with his boss????

No, I don't actually give a damn about the abuse. I give a damn that they were going to send a 19 year old away from her mother and her family when she had no-one else to turn to. That's not just wrong, it's immoral and inhuman.

So WHY did her apparantly horrified family MOVE thousands of miles AWAY from her????

Because they thought at the time she was being supported by her husband, and when they turned out to be abusive, she, like any daughter, needed her mother. Now she is trying to better herself with education so she can be productive.

Why are the rest of the family claiming asylum?

Presumably, the girl must have known that she might not be allowed to stay before she started these A levels.

They are not claiming asylum, they have been granted it. So there must have been a reason.

What is the matter with you people, the girl is 19, her family are here, haven't you got daughters?

According to the Guardian, the whole family is going to be deported.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/25/yashika-bageerathi-family-deported-mauritius

Sassy wrote:They are not claiming asylum, they have been granted it.   So there must have been a reason.

What is the matter with you people, the girl is 19, her family are here, haven't you got daughters?

Where does it say that the rest of the family were granted asylum?

Sorry, misread it because they were sending the 19 year old by herself.

Right, read again. They were told that her case was being done separately and she was being sent back and given to understand that the others would stay.

When there was a fuss about her being sent by herself, that's when they came out with the whole family going:

Solicitors working on Yashika's case were told that it had been rejoined with that of the rest of her family, and that the appeal against their deportation had been rejected. On Tuesday evening, the news was broken to teachers and friends of two of the family's three children at the Oasis Academy Hadley, in north London, who have led a campaign to block the deportation supported by more than 100,000 people.

Headteacher Lynne Dawes said she thought the move was an attempt to dismiss their argument that deporting Yashika would split up her family. "I'm not proud of my country treating people in this way," she said. "Her mother is not coping, she's really struggling and is very tearful."

The family, including Yashika's mother Sowbhagyawatee, 38, sister Shaivya, 16 and brother Cherish, 11, will now be deported.

Lee Pedder, 18, a friend of Yashika, said: "Our legal team are pushing them and we will continue to as well. If her entire family is going to be deported, we will support them all. This is a massively cynical tactic to try and shut up democratic oversight."

I presume that they were not considered to be in enough danger to be granted asylum, so they're not entitled to be here. I've nothing against the girl and her family, but there's no point having an asylum system if anyone who claims asylum can stay, regardless of the circumstances.

Yep and it also says

The family came to the UK in 2012, fleeing violent threats from a family member.

that has never been, and never should be a consideration for asylum
as I said...whats next?? what feeble excuse will next be justified to allow in the worlds waifs and strays, and domestic clusterf**ks

how many more do you think we can absorb..(hmm...no THEY dont do "absorb" do they) doctors surgeries, schools, A&E, social services, housing ....all at the tipping point of collapse and yet you would want ANOTHER "get in clause"......

If someone is in danger in their own country they are entitled to claim asylum, it doesn't matter who is making the threats. That is already the law.

victorisnotamused wrote:Yep and it also says

The family came to the UK in 2012, fleeing violent threats from a family member.

that has never been, and never should be a consideration for asylum
as I said...whats next??   what feeble excuse will next be justified to allow in the worlds waifs and strays, and domestic clusterf**ks

how many more do you think we can absorb..(hmm...no THEY dont do "absorb" do they) doctors surgeries, schools, A&E, social services, housing ....all at the tipping point of collapse and yet you would want ANOTHER "get in clause"......

Hey Victor...I also realize we can only accommodate do many asylum seekers, but you really surprised me with this post   

Has the girl had free education whilst she's been here? I don't get why she was able to undertake A levels if she wasn't legally here.

Anyone who is living here under a certain age is entitled to go to school. Thank goodness. If they have claimed asylum they can take an exam course until it is decided because they are not legally allowed to work.

Sassy wrote:Anyone who is living here under a certain age is entitled to go to school.   Thank goodness.  If they have claimed asylum they can take an exam course until it is decided because they are not legally allowed to work.

Under a certain age, but she's over that age. The trouble is that it all takes so long, and then the person gets all cosy here and gets a new life. Then they claim all this family stuff, or that they have friends or a future here, or whatever.

Sassy wrote:If someone is in danger in their own country they are entitled to claim asylum, it doesn't matter who is making the threats.   That is already the law.

Yes but the definition of danger is different to what you would expect...
the danger this family are in is able to be dealt with by the domestic processes within mauritius, by their domestic law...
The "danger" of assylum arises when the law of that land has either broken down and is inoperative OR the law of that land poses a distinct threat.

No she isn't, they go by the age when you start the course, not when you finish it.

Because of sickness, by grandson started his A levels at 17 and won't take them until this June when he is 19.

I wanna claim asylum cos my shoes are wearing a bit thin and I haven't got a winter coat.....!

 

Sassy wrote:No she isn't, they go by the age when you start the course, not when you finish it.

Because of sickness, by grandson started his A levels at 17 and won't take them until this June when he is 19.

But A levels aren't usually considered to be basic education are they?

Anyway, it's a bit daft to assume you can finish a course with an asylum case hanging over you.

I expect they'll let the whole family stay anyway. I don't know why they bother with this asylum thing half the time.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Sassy wrote:If someone is in danger in their own country they are entitled to claim asylum, it doesn't matter who is making the threats.   That is already the law.

Yes but the definition of danger is different to what you would expect...
the danger this family are in is able to be dealt with by the domestic processes within mauritius, by their domestic law...
The "danger" of assylum arises when the law of that land has either broken down and is inoperative OR the law of that land poses a distinct threat.

That's what I thought too. She's entitled to protection under the law in Mauritius.

Asylum is for -
a) Persecution from your govt, no where in your whole country to go, and in real fear for your life?
b) Had a barny with your husband?

Joy Division wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:Yep and it also says

The family came to the UK in 2012, fleeing violent threats from a family member.

that has never been, and never should be a consideration for asylum
as I said...whats next??   what feeble excuse will next be justified to allow in the worlds waifs and strays, and domestic clusterf**ks

how many more do you think we can absorb..(hmm...no THEY dont do "absorb" do they) doctors surgeries, schools, A&E, social services, housing ....all at the tipping point of collapse and yet you would want ANOTHER "get in clause"......

Hey Victor...I also realize we can only accommodate do many asylum seekers, but you really surprised me with this post   

Really....well sometimes it takes something nasty to make you open your eyes....

like being royally screwed over 3 (thats three times) in one year. 50 customers and 3 dont and wont pay....guess who......(clue...they aint the majority here ATM)

and yes its a significant amount....not that the amount actually matters directly....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:No she isn't, they go by the age when you start the course, not when you finish it.
Because of sickness, by grandson started his A levels at 17 and won't take them until this June when he is 19.

But A levels aren't usually considered to be basic education are they?
Anyway, it's a bit daft to assume you can finish a course with an asylum case hanging over you.
I expect they'll let the whole family stay anyway. I don't know why they bother with this asylum thing half the time.

Well that is exectly how bonkers/progressive this country has become.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493663/Revealed-Asylum-seeker-given-10-000-flying-lessons-taxpayer-lied-age-cared-child-falsely-claimed-parents-dead-missing.html
And for those of you who will immediately moan about the mail link....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10426604/Taxpayers-foot-10000-bill-for-failed-asylum-seekers-flying-lessons.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/asylum-seeker-who-wants-to-be-a-pilot-will-have-10000-worth-of-flying-lessons-paid-for-by-taxpayer-8921699.html
And for the real hardcore cretins who will still moan......
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/asylum-seeker-yonas-kebede-10000-2677257

You see what I mean?

This episode is indefensible. There is absolutely no reasoning behind why she overstayed her welcome.

So what has to happen for the left to say "ok, that's enough"?