This entry was posted on Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Should Iraqi asylum seekers who have been refused asylum be sent home? Probably. I don’t have a problem with the Government sending out a letter that says their case has been reviewed and as they are not being granted refugee status they must leave the UK or risk losing housing or the benefits that are helping them to buy a house. However Sky news is reporting that this letter of rejection is also asking the asylum seekers to sign a waiver that they agree to the UK Government taking no responsibility for what happens to them once they return home. Isn’t that the Government saying that these people are probably at risk going back to Iraq – and that being the case, isn’t that the Government saying that the there is a reason why these people are here? In which case, why are they being sent back?
The fact that the Government is willing to return people to Iraq knowing that they’re in danger once they do so is shocking (not surprising, but shocking), but the fact that they want to be absolved of any guilt or responsibility should something happen to these people is disgusting. Someone needs to think seriously about the implications of what they’re doing, and if they are going to send back rejected asylum seekers, they need to do so with absolute certainty that these people are not in danger – because if they were in danger of persecution, then they ought to have been granted their asylum status.
On a more positive note. This is what I'm going to change next the mole removal pages