Skip to content or view screen version

Immigration deport people who have been tortured back to where they fled from

megan | 18.06.2005 09:21

Immigration, like the NHS waiting lists, have quotas to maintain. That means they keep rejecting people who have been severely tortured and have visible wounds, back into the arms of their oppressors. This is to appease the right wing, appear tough on asylum, and maintain the refugee system as a service for the economic interests of this country, rather than anything remotely to do with safeguarding human rights.

Every day Immigration deport people who have been tortured in their home countries, back into the hell that they fled from, such as Rwanda. That is, after they have endured the Kafkaesque process of applying for asylum in this country and been refused because nothing they say and no amount of evidence they give to back up their cases, is every believed. They are guilty until proved innocent and every obstacle is placed in their way to prevent them proving their innocence.

People who have medical examinations stating they were tortured are dismissed by the Home Office who say the GPs who wrote the reports were not specialist enough to assess them for torture. The human rights abuses perpetrated by Immigration every day in this country are being compounded by the deportation process, which is in reality tantamount to a death sentence by proxy.

megan

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Rwanada

18.06.2005 10:54

So they decide to leave Rwanda because life is so hard and decide to go where - well let's see how about

South Africa - similar culture, not far too travel.... No
Zambia - same tribal background, same language.... No
Italy - not too far, nice climate .... No
France - Plenty of work ..... No
Germany ..... many Africans there, good standard of living ..... No

The UK , cold, wet .... Yes

Can we stop pretending these peole are so called asylum seekers and recognise them for what they are economic migrants. A true asylum seeker, fearing torture or death would have fled to the closest place he or she could have reached.

Really ?

Really?

18.06.2005 14:56

That shows how ignorant you are: the vast majority of people seeking asylum do in fact flee to neighbouring countries. Only a small minority come to the UK, for various reasons: they have friends or families here, they get fed up starving in a squalid refugee camp in a country nearby, neighbouring countries are dangerous like hell; sometimes they believe - alas mistakingly - that human rights are respected in the UK. Stop reading the Daily Mail and get yourself an education.

Kath