For BA

Asylum seekers are NOT HERE ILLEGALLY.
They are perfectly legal while their case is being heard.

You mean apart from the ones who are caught hiding under lorries coming in from Calais and who are immediately deported?

eddie wrote:You mean apart from the ones who are caught hiding under lorries coming in from Calais and who are immediately deported?

If they make it here eds I'm not sure they are immediately deported...not without a passport anyway.

We are duty bound to ensure the safety of those hidden on trucks if they get here, just as our officers in Calais are when they catch them.

..the ones who are here awaiting a decision on asylum may have to sign on at the police station...not for dole!

No, I am talking about the girl on BA's thread that has been locked. She came here legally as an asylum seeker. He is making out she is illegal and a thief when she is doing her absolute best, being a straight A student after being abused.

BA stands for Bloody Arsehole.

So which country is she seeking asylum from? France? Germany? Ireland? The US? Dont the rule on asylum say that it must be sought in the first safe country the refugee arrives in?

Sassy wrote:No, I am talking about the girl on BA's thread that has been locked.   She came here legally as an asylum seeker.   He is making out she is illegal and a thief when she is doing her absolute best, being a straight A student after being abused.

BA stands for Bloody Arsehole.

Is that the girl on the news last night?
I'll go read the thread.... Why was it locked?

sphinx wrote:So which country is she seeking asylum from?  France?  Germany?  Ireland?  The US?  Dont the rule on asylum say that it must be sought in the first safe country the refugee arrives in?

No it doesn't, that was firmly put to bed in another thread.

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:No, I am talking about the girl on BA's thread that has been locked.   She came here legally as an asylum seeker.   He is making out she is illegal and a thief when she is doing her absolute best, being a straight A student after being abused.

BA stands for Bloody Arsehole.

Is that the girl on the news last night?
I'll go read the thread.... Why was it locked?

It was locked because Andy insisted upon re-editing the headline after I changed it. Theft is a crime and we shouldn't be accusing people of committing crimes in our headlines that they haven't been charged with committing by authorities -- that's libel.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Is that the girl on the news last night?
I'll go read the thread.... Why was it locked?

It was locked because Andy insisted upon re-editing the headline after I changed it. Theft is a crime and we shouldn't be accusing people of committing crimes in our headlines that they haven't been charged with committing by authorities -- that's libel.

Quite right too, Andy , this is really double standards after how you defended the indefensible in Savile...even the police called him a predator, yet you've got people down as criminals who have not been convicted of a crime.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:So which country is she seeking asylum from?  France?  Germany?  Ireland?  The US?  Dont the rule on asylum say that it must be sought in the first safe country the refugee arrives in?

No it doesn't, that was firmly put to bed in another thread.

No I beg your pardon the precise legality is that a country in which asylum is sought can refuse asylum and return the person seeking it to the country they were in immediately before entering the one in which asylum is being sought so long as it would be reasonable for the person to have sought asylum in that country.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No it doesn't, that was firmly put to bed in another thread.

No I beg your pardon the precise legality is that a country in which asylum is sought can refuse asylum and return the person seeking it to the country they were in immediately before entering the one in which asylum is being sought so long as it would be reasonable for the person to have sought asylum in that country.

I have to say, that's what I thought too.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No it doesn't, that was firmly put to bed in another thread.

No I beg your pardon the precise legality is that a country in which asylum is sought can refuse asylum and return the person seeking it to the country they were in immediately before entering the one in which asylum is being sought so long as it would be reasonable for the person to have sought asylum in that country.

I can't remember the thread name, but the actual law was put up and that is not what it said. Will try and remember who put the law up, might have been Irn.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No it doesn't, that was firmly put to bed in another thread.

No I beg your pardon the precise legality is that a country in which asylum is sought can refuse asylum and return the person seeking it to the country they were in immediately before entering the one in which asylum is being sought so long as it would be reasonable for the person to have sought asylum in that country.

Haven't really read about the case, but isn't this girl from Mauritius? I've got friends from Mauritius - lovely place, I can't imagine anyone needing asylum from it!

I think you'll all find she came here as a tourist, stayed illegally and when found she claimed asylum (as do thousands of other chancers every year).

She is claiming asylum for domestic abuse.  England and no other country gives asylum for domestic abuse - she should contact her local police station for that.

I think you will find she came here and claimed asylum:

Yashika fled Mauritius with her family in 2012 after a drug dealer broke into her house. “I refused to open the house door, it was just me and my younger siblings at home”, she told the Independent. “He broke it down and came in, started hitting my sister and me, and tore my clothes. My mum came home from work before he could do anything.” This man has warned that his gang will be waiting to greet Yashika off the plane. “He lost a lot of money because of us to do with his drug-dealing.”

Her home is currently a cell in the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention centre – but weeks ago she was a top student at her school in Enfield. She is predicted A*s, she has offers from all five of her university choices – and scholarships from two of them. Her school has spoken about how she spends her spare time volunteering to coach younger students. Hardly cell-block material.

There is something unseemly about the haste with which the Home Office is trying to deport Yashika. She is a matter of months from completing her A levels – there can be no logical explanation why her education should be so cruelly and irrevocably disrupted in this way. Her supporters argued that she had no family in Mauritius, that all she had to welcome her “home” was the man who tried to rape her

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/save-yashika-bageerathi-why-home-office-trying-deport-straight-student

I think you will find the reason why the drug dealer lost money was because they had reported him.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think you'll all find she came here as a tourist, stayed illegally and when found she claimed asylum (as do thousands of other chancers every year).

She is claiming asylum for domestic abuse.  England and no other country gives asylum for domestic abuse - she should contact her local police station for that.

That's not the case now Andy...,many overstayers are detained , yes some are not and have to sign at the cop shop and abscond...but if caught again are detained in a detention centre until paperwork is done and a passport is made for the absconder who are then put on a flight and escorted home to their country of origin or usual residence...


...but those who overstay who have a passport are deported quickly....


The UK border agency don't fall for every single asylum claim Andy, their not zipped up the back.

Sassy wrote:I think you will find she came here and claimed asylum:

Yashika fled Mauritius with her family in 2012 after a drug dealer broke into her house. “I refused to open the house door, it was just me and my younger siblings at home”, she told the Independent. “He broke it down and came in, started hitting my sister and me, and tore my clothes. My mum came home from work before he could do anything.” This man has warned that his gang will be waiting to greet Yashika off the plane. “He lost a lot of money because of us to do with his drug-dealing.”

Her home is currently a cell in the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention centre – but weeks ago she was a top student at her school in Enfield. She is predicted A*s, she has offers from all five of her university choices – and scholarships from two of them. Her school has spoken about how she spends her spare time volunteering to coach younger students. Hardly cell-block material.

There is something unseemly about the haste with which the Home Office is trying to deport Yashika. She is a matter of months from completing her A levels – there can be no logical explanation why her education should be so cruelly and irrevocably disrupted in this way. Her supporters argued that she had no family in Mauritius, that all she had to welcome her “home” was the man who tried to rape her

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/save-yashika-bageerathi-why-home-office-trying-deport-straight-student

I think you will find the reason why the drug dealer lost money was because they had reported him.

So does that mean the person being harrassed by the local drug dealer in this country can go to the US or Australia and claim asylum there?

I thought asylum was supposed to be about state sponsored abuse not ordinary criminals breaking the law.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:I think you will find she came here and claimed asylum:

Yashika fled Mauritius with her family in 2012 after a drug dealer broke into her house. “I refused to open the house door, it was just me and my younger siblings at home”, she told the Independent. “He broke it down and came in, started hitting my sister and me, and tore my clothes. My mum came home from work before he could do anything.” This man has warned that his gang will be waiting to greet Yashika off the plane. “He lost a lot of money because of us to do with his drug-dealing.”

Her home is currently a cell in the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention centre – but weeks ago she was a top student at her school in Enfield. She is predicted A*s, she has offers from all five of her university choices – and scholarships from two of them. Her school has spoken about how she spends her spare time volunteering to coach younger students. Hardly cell-block material.

There is something unseemly about the haste with which the Home Office is trying to deport Yashika. She is a matter of months from completing her A levels – there can be no logical explanation why her education should be so cruelly and irrevocably disrupted in this way. Her supporters argued that she had no family in Mauritius, that all she had to welcome her “home” was the man who tried to rape her

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/save-yashika-bageerathi-why-home-office-trying-deport-straight-student

I think you will find the reason why the drug dealer lost money was because they had reported him.

So does that mean the person being harrassed by the local drug dealer in this country can go to the US or Australia and claim asylum there?

I thought asylum was supposed to be about state sponsored abuse not ordinary criminals breaking the law.

No they bloody can't!

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So does that mean the person being harrassed by the local drug dealer in this country can go to the US or Australia and claim asylum there?

I thought asylum was supposed to be about state sponsored abuse not ordinary criminals breaking the law.

No they bloody can't!

Sorry but to me it sounds as if this woman is a simple ordinary (not that those words are appropriate) victim of crime in her home country and I do not see how that can possibly be grounds for asylum. For emigrating maybe but not asylum.

sphinx wrote:

eddie wrote:

No they bloody can't!

Sorry but to me it sounds as if this woman is a simple ordinary (not that those words are appropriate) victim of crime in her home country and I do not see how that can possibly be grounds for asylum.  For emigrating maybe but not asylum.

As much as she seems like a lovely and educated hard-working girl, I have to agree.

Maybe they are getting too clever for their own good.  

Straight As would get into almost any Country, but who gives the best benefits for non work.......  We do.

As for the OP about her not being illegal - if she came on a tourist visa and overstayed before claiming asylum then she sure as hell was illegal.

Its simple isn't it, if she is here illegally then she should be sent back. Just because she seems like a lovely well educated girl doesn't mean that she should be able to stay. May sound harsh, but where do you draw the line?

And we don't know why the Home Office is so keen to deport her either, they have a lot more information on people than they release to the public.

harvesmom wrote:Its simple isn't it, if she is here illegally then she should be sent back. Just because she seems like a lovely well educated girl doesn't mean that she should be able to stay. May sound harsh, but where do you draw the line?

And we don't know why the Home Office is so keen to deport her either, they have a lot more information on people than they release to the public.

Well said HM   

Can I call you Honey Monster instead?

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:Its simple isn't it, if she is here illegally then she should be sent back. Just because she seems like a lovely well educated girl doesn't mean that she should be able to stay. May sound harsh, but where do you draw the line?

And we don't know why the Home Office is so keen to deport her either, they have a lot more information on people than they release to the public.

Well said HM   

Can I call you Honey Monster instead?

If ya like   

OOooooo Kinky

Honey Monster...............  Love it..

Remember the advert, banned now not PC................  

Not saying you are and look like.......  Love the connotation, am i out of the foxhole yet  ?

gerber wrote:Honey Monster...............  Love it..

Remember the advert, banned now not PC................  

Not saying you are and look like.......  Love the connotation, am i out of the foxhole yet  ?

When you're in a hole, stop digging   

This girl looks like a role model and a shining example to many of our home grown children on how to better themselves.

Refugees (that's what they used to be called) that enter this country illegally are granted legal status as soon as they apply for asylum. First country is only a principle and they can apply in any country that they want to.

sphinx wrote:As for the OP about her not being illegal - if she came on a tourist visa and overstayed  before claiming asylum then she sure as hell was illegal.

Andy really should have checked rather than making the usual assumptions and accusations.

harvesmom wrote:

gerber wrote:Honey Monster...............  Love it..

Remember the advert, banned now not PC................  

Not saying you are and look like.......  Love the connotation, am i out of the foxhole yet  ?

When you're in a hole, stop digging   

Love digging.  Want to be a true Ausie Digger and get a Tinny out of bee.................  May take some time Auszie and Pomme land are a few thousand feet down and centre........

What happened to women supporting women?

I'm extremely glad her headmistress is kicking up such a fuss, the petition on Change.Org was signed by over 100,000 people.

They were going to deport her without her Mother and siblings, and the man who tried to rape her and is involved with drugs etc is her only other relative, so they were going to send a 19 year old back to deal with him.

So now every person threatened with a crime being committed against them can come to the UK and claim asylum and does not have to bother expecting the legal system in their own country to protect them.

Is rape illegal in Mauritius? If it is why is that grounds for asylum here?

Hmmm yes the point is, if I were to be raped and felt scared of my attacker, I wouldn't be able to claim asylum in another country, could I?

sphinx wrote:So now every person threatened with a crime being committed against them can come to the UK and claim asylum and does not have to bother expecting the legal system in their own country to protect them.

Is rape illegal in Mauritius?  If it is why is that grounds for asylum here?

Some info on that...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4275794.stm

Would depend on the circumstances Eddie, if nothing was done about the attacker and you were in fear of your life, I think the answer is yes.

Asylum is a place of safety and refuge. In immigration law, it is a promise of protection in another country when your own country threatens your life or safety due to your race, political beliefs, religion, or other personal or social choices. The threat can come from your country's government or from others acting outside the law there. You don't have to be physically harmed to seek asylum in the United States. It's enough that you believe you would be harmed if you did not leave the former country.

If you're in danger, you can flee to the United States right away, even if you can't do it legally by applying for a visa first. You can take the necessary steps toward legally applying for asylum after you get into the country, no matter how you got here. You have to apply within a year, however.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/immigration/the-united-states-provides-asylum-when-harm-is-feared.html

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:So now every person threatened with a crime being committed against them can come to the UK and claim asylum and does not have to bother expecting the legal system in their own country to protect them.

Is rape illegal in Mauritius?  If it is why is that grounds for asylum here?

Some info on that...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4275794.stm

Now, her courage to speak out about the brutal attacks is helping to give a voice to others in Mauritius, a country where conservative cultural barriers often force rape victims to remain silent about their ordeals.

So the answer is Yes rape is illegal in Mauritius.

It seems there is a problem with the understanding and enforcing of that law - but that does not mean the answer is to all women threatened with rape to claim asylum here.

How about providing a little bit of that foreign aid budge to provide training for the legal professionals and support for the victims in Mauritius rather than leaving their women to feel the best option is to leave for another country? Surely that would have far more long term benefit for both countries?

It isn't anything to do with training lawyers, it's cultural.

' But women's groups say rape cases are grossly under-reported, and official figures represent only a fraction of the truth.

"We live in a very conservative culture here in Mauritius where often victims who are raped by family members are forced to keep silent, either because no-one will believe them or because they will be outcasts," says Sandra.

"Many feel ashamed and humiliated, and some even are made to believe it is their fault," she adds.

"This needs to change and that can only happen through education - educating men that they cannot rape their wives, and educating women that they should not accept rape as a part of life."


But meanwhile I am shocked that women here are happy to send a 19 year old back to deal with that on her own.

Do you really think the answer would be that simple Sphinx? We're all clear on the illegality of rape in Britain, egs., yet the conviction rate remains very low.

Sassy wrote:It isn't anything to do with training lawyers, it's cultural.  

And of course it is impossible to change a countries culture (unless that country is the UK).

Seriously what is going to benefit more women - giving this woman asylum or providing her with the support and tools to start changing the culture she comes from.

And that takes time, and meanwhile you are happy to send a 19 year old back to cope alone. Truly I'm shocked.

Sassy wrote:Would depend on the circumstances Eddie, if nothing was done about the attacker and you were in fear of your life, I think the answer is yes.

Asylum is a place of safety and refuge. In immigration law, it is a promise of protection in another country when your own country threatens your life or safety due to your race, political beliefs, religion, or other personal or social choices. The threat can come from your country's government or from others acting outside the law there. You don't have to be physically harmed to seek asylum in the United States. It's enough that you believe you would be harmed if you did not leave the former country.

If you're in danger, you can flee to the United States right away, even if you can't do it legally by applying for a visa first. You can take the necessary steps toward legally applying for asylum after you get into the country, no matter how you got here. You have to apply within a year, however.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/immigration/the-united-states-provides-asylum-when-harm-is-feared.html

Sassy, I don't believe that to be true.
I can't go into too much info but recently there was a murder where I live.
A girl witness was threatened by that gang.

They won't even move her out of her house.

Now I won't put all my money on it, but I'm wondering how many cases and instances we can find where someone has actually been moved to another country altogether, from England, for their own safety!
I bet it's between a few and none.

Probably because they never think to do it, but the rules are the rules, if the police won't protect them, they have that right.

Sassy wrote:It isn't anything to do with training lawyers, it's cultural.

' But women's groups say rape cases are grossly under-reported, and official figures represent only a fraction of the truth.

"We live in a very conservative culture here in Mauritius where often victims who are raped by family members are forced to keep silent, either because no-one will believe them or because they will be outcasts," says Sandra.

"Many feel ashamed and humiliated, and some even are made to believe it is their fault," she adds.

"This needs to change and that can only happen through education - educating men that they cannot rape their wives, and educating women that they should not accept rape as a part of life."


But meanwhile I am shocked that women here are happy to send a 19 year old back to deal with that on her own.

Do they have a police force in Mauritius?

Courts?

Prisons?

Sassy wrote:And that takes time, and meanwhile you are happy to send a 19 year old back to cope alone.   Truly I'm shocked.

I have not said she should be sent back alone - I have said she should be denied asylum and sent back with a support team to help get the system on the right tracks.

Sassy wrote:It isn't anything to do with training lawyers, it's cultural.

' But women's groups say rape cases are grossly under-reported, and official figures represent only a fraction of the truth.

"We live in a very conservative culture here in Mauritius where often victims who are raped by family members are forced to keep silent, either because no-one will believe them or because they will be outcasts," says Sandra.

"Many feel ashamed and humiliated, and some even are made to believe it is their fault," she adds.

"This needs to change and that can only happen through education - educating men that they cannot rape their wives, and educating women that they should not accept rape as a part of life."


But meanwhile I am shocked that women here are happy to send a 19 year old back to deal with that on her own.

I'm not saying I'm happy,to send her back, I don't even want to, if I'm honest.
Like I said, she seems an honest and hard-working girl. She's not sitting around doing nothing with her life either.

But my sticking point is this; you or I would not be given asylum in another country like she has. They won't even move you to another county!

You move yourself and claim asylum, no-one moves you.

But why should the UK be responsible for, and pay for the moral standards in the rest of the World? Why should we have to bend our laws to accommodate them?
I am all for women supporting women, but within the boundaries of the law of this land. Her case has clearly been looked at by those in possession of all the facts, the Home Office and they have decided she has to return to her own Country, so be it.

We aren't bending our laws. As a matter of fact her case is still being looked at, one of the reasons that she wasn't sent yesterday.

I really am shocked that woman think to send this girl back, without her family, the Home Office deliberately separated her from her mother and siblings, to face a situation like that is ok.