British Women That Marry Asylum Seekers
Justice4Hossein Campaign | 28.07.2005 23:22 | Anti-racism | Gender | Migration | London
In February 2005 The Home Office brought about new regulations forcing all non European Nationals to ask ‘permission’ before getting married.
Those non EU Nationals married in the United Kingdom before February of this year may classify themselves as being amongst ‘one of the lucky’ few who managed to marry the person they love, however it seems that even before these new laws were passed marriage to an non-EU member didn’t count for very much in Britain anyway.
The shocking reality of being married to an non-EU member in Britain today is a life of forced uncertainty, dominated by the imminent threat of your loved ones being deported and returned to a country where they most probably face certain death. Astonishingly the ’Right to Marry and found a family’ as outlined in Article 8 of The Human Rights Act is certainly not a right that exists for many British women today.
Jessica and Hossein
Hossein & Jessica Siavoshy were married in 2003 before the passing of the laws. Their marriage has been viewed by the Home Office as being ‘precarious’ and not justification for allowing Hossein to remain in the United Kingdom.
Hossein came to the U.K from Iran in October 2000. He fled Iran awaiting sentencing after having spent some months in prison where he was interrogated and tortured. Upon arrival in he U.K Hossein claimed political asylum on the basis of the severe torture he had endured. Despite the atrocities that are widely known to occur in Iran under the oppression Islamic regime, Hossein’s claims were rejected by the Home Office and subsequently so was his application to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his marriage to Jessica.
The Home Office claim that Hossein must travel back to Iran and apply for an entry clearance, and that Jessica is free to accompany him at public expense, however a requirement of Jessica travelling to Iran is that she must convert to Islam!
Should Jessica remain in the United Kingdom and Hossein travel back to Iran alone, the Home Office are forcing this couple, married under British law to be indefinitely separated since there is no guarantee that Hossein will be granted entry clearance, one of the requirements of which is that he should have a wife living in the U.K whom is able to financially support him, but as Jessica has had to give up her job as a Teaching Assistant due to the negative effects their case is having on the mental health, the couple cannot meet this requirement.
Jessica and Hossein’s lives have been entirely devastated by the Home Office’s decision, and astonishingly they are not alone.
Heather and Shah are to attend an appeal tribunal on August 9th in a bid to persuade the Home Office to allow Shah who is from Afghanistan to remain in the United Kingdom on the grounds of their marriage. In a similarly astounding conclusion, the Home Office insist that Heather can easily accompany Shah to Afghanistan, and therefore ‘there shall be no interference with his right to family life under Article 8‘. This is a ludicrous statement as the Foreign Office strongly advises against any British Citizen travelling to Afghanistan due to the high risk of terrorism. Absolutely no consideration has been taken by the Home Office of the extreme dangers that a western woman living in Afghanistan would face.
Not only this, but there is currently no facility in place within Afghanistan for issuing entry visas, creating an obviously insurmountable obstacle for Heather and Shah should they travel to Afghanistan.
Similarly Jenifer, married to an Iranian man Ali who is also facing deportation have been informed on numerous by the Home Office that Jenifer could easily be expected to move to Iran with Ali and that despite believing their marriage to be genuine Ali’s application was refused, without any opportunity for the couple to state the facts of their case.
These women are expected to give up their cultures, their lives and all the freedoms they are allowed to exercise in Britain as women in order to apparently ‘maintain effective immigration control’ as mentioned by a Home Office representative.
The problems faced by these British married couples are in spite of the grave dangers that await their husbands on return to their countries. The men have been imprisoned and tortured. The British embassy informs travellers that ’Westerners have been a target of kidnappers in Iran’ and that ‘all travel to the border areas with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq’ are strongly advised against. However in spite of these strong statements advised to the rest of Britain it appears that those women who just happen to have fallen in love with an Iranian or Afghan man must face these consequences, and in fact the government is offering to pay their airfare to do so!
Links:Jessica & Hossein Siavoshy’s official website
Details of Shah and Heather’s campaign
Justice4Hossein Campaign
e-mail:
www.justice4hossein.com
Comments
Hide the following 37 comments
us white people
29.07.2005 08:52
It just goes to show that when people and politicians talk spuriously about tightening immigration controls and limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed into Britain, they are very specifically talking about black and brown immigrants. They are even willing to create a different set of laws for who they consider undesirable immigrants that none of us Yanks, Canadians, Australians, South Africans or New Zealanders will ever have to face.
'nother yank
ANOMALY
29.07.2005 09:00
legal eagle
Are there any instances ......
29.07.2005 13:58
If not, is there any basis for brining a sex discrimination claim against the government?
A race discrimination one seems in order as well.....
BRB
EXCELLENT POINT, DOES ANYONE KNOW?
29.07.2005 15:28
The trouble is it is so difficult to get lawyers to take on our case as a human rights case, they insist it is simply immigration. If anyone knows of a human rights lawyer that would be interested, we can pay but not that much.
Many thanks, Jessica
JESSICA SIAVOSHY RE: JUSTICE 4 HOSSEIN
e-mail:
JUSTICE4HOSSEIN@AOL.COM
Homepage:
http://WWW.JUSTICE4HOSSEIN.COM
PERHAPS AN OPTION
30.07.2005 00:07
I wish you all the best...
dvs
any emails?
30.07.2005 02:51
Many thanks xx
Please note that our latest ploy is to email the Immigration minister Tony Mcnulty thousands of emails about our case so he has to listen! You can do this on our website.
Jessica re: justice4hossein
e-mail:
justice4hossein@aol.com
Homepage:
http://www.justice4hossein.com
Re: British Women That Marry Asylum Seekers
30.07.2005 11:10
Tim Beers
Actually Tim
30.07.2005 11:17
I am sure that I am not the only person who has found this angle on the story interesting.
I can't see anything in the article which suggests that the men's rights are not being violated.
BRB
HMMM DO YOU KNOW THE HOME OFFICE?
30.07.2005 23:44
J SIAVOSHY RE: JUSTICE4HOSSEIN
e-mail:
JUSTICE4HOSSEIN@AOL.COM
Homepage:
http://WWW.JUSTICE4HOSSEIN.COM
Take another look at BRB's comment
31.07.2005 01:08
TRY making an issue of this based on "sex discrimination" because it might fly -- politicians might not be so willing in today's society to argue in favor of the difference.
What the ex-Yank woman had to say should also be examined. But I rather suspect that you'll find that non-white Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. women are no more challenged about the their marriages being shams to enable them to reside in Britain than their white sisters. The reality is that it's not easy to prove "sham" so the authorities probably spend their investigating resources on the likeliest situations. The places listed are not considered less desirable than Britain and so statisticly almost all changes of residences would be for the reason stated, real marriage to a Brit. An investigator who spent much time looking into these on the off chance he or she would find the odd sham case would end up with a lousy success rate -- not great for one's career. What you would need to do to investigate the matter would be to find out if marriages of British men to women from places like Eastern Europe or Western Asia get investigated as possibly sham before assuming "racial"
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
Gender
31.07.2005 03:24
In fact the current title of your piece, "British Women That Marry Asylum Seekers" made me think that you were part of a feminist group. I'm hoping that marriage and immigration are the central issues here. The comments above regarding British men marrying asylum seekers are interesting, they are certainly worth considering, maybe there is a real line of defence there. I'm not saying that this isn't a woman's rights issue, but as in your article you yourself seem to be saying, it is more widely a human rights issue.
As a man I hope you can forgive me for being suspicious of a radical feminist agenda. I sometimes accompany a female friend to the local University's woman's issues group. There and elsewhere I have been educated regarding many important issues but I have also met plenty of the vitriolic, "testosterone causes war" type stuff. I'm not suggesting that you are a femiloon, or that you shouldn't be, but when everything turns into a women's issue my suspicions are raised. I like to think of myself as open minded (I am still reading!) but I'm just warning you that others may be turned off.
Turning this into a woman's issue just makes me suspicious - what is the agenda here? I wonder whether this is part of a woman's group trying to circumvent immigration control. Rather than simply two humans who want to be together. Immigration rules should be argued on their own grounds. I think it is deeply immoral to use marriage to circumvent those rules - that undermines our human right to family life. I'm making this comment because on searching about I found at least some evidence of your genuine love going back to 2003 (Chris De Burgh?!). I doubt that you were cunning enough to leave this reference maliciously. You might think I'm overly suspicious but the Home Office are clearly more so.
Incidentally, putting the rights and wrongs aside, I can see why the Home Office introduced the requirement for a permission to get married. Now that you are married I would've thought that due to your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty the onus is on them to prove your marriage was illegal.
Good luck.
Stewart
Correction
31.07.2005 04:02
Stewart
Stewart
31.07.2005 09:07
Jessica is clearly under stress, and has found herself in a situation where a lot of her ideas about the society we live in have been shattered. As the article notes, she is under some considerable strain as a result of her husband being under threat of removal to Iran.
Mike
Are there any white Zimbabweans in "dispersal centres" ? There certainly are black Zimbabweans detained and under threat.
Likewise are there white South Africans being deported? Because again, black South Africans have been deported.
BRB
That's what I asked YOU to find out BRB
31.07.2005 11:11
Except you have reframed the question in such a way as to be irrelevant to the question by ignoring the other factors. The information you should seek is .........
a) Are there Zimbabwean and South African WOMEN in dispersal centers because their marriages to British men (of whatever color) were deemed insufficinet to give them residency rights in Britain?
b) Are there numbers of Zimbabwean and South African white men who have been given these rights based on their marriages to British women? > Or for example are the Zimbabwean white men instead trying to get into Australia, New Zealand, or Canada by marrying women there because most are farmers and their chances for land would be piss poor in Britain. Please note that I was NOT suggesting that I know the answers to these questions, nor am I denying Birtish racism. I am simply suggesting what infromation is necessary to intelligently consider the questions.
Look, maybe it's my science background. You make initial observations and come up with a theory. Then you ask what OTHER information would test the theory one way or the other. Here the theory is that "it's JUST racism" and I am suggesting what might indicate that there were other things going on, either in stead of or in addition to racism. What has been described as happening certainly deserves investigation.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
Amar Anwar
31.07.2005 11:40
Their appeal date is the 12th August, but have a very good lawyer here in Glasgow. If this appeal fails we will keep fighting,but if Francis gets sent back Ashley will go with him and I intend to go as well. But as a British Citizen I expect all the support and protection that was given to the G8 members, and have written to Charles Clarke outlining this.
We tried to get Amar Anwar but he was not taking on any new cases, his number is 0141 554 0999. address 40 Carlton Place glasgow G5 9TR.
Barbara Evans
Barbara Evans
e-mail:
barbara3@ntlword.com
wait a minute
31.07.2005 12:30
Why on earth should anyone just be able to come here and partake in the benefits of living here? It should be through common consent that people are allowed to settle here, marry and work and claim benefits.
There is no common consent for uncontrolled immigration, whether that is through the front door, the back door (asylum, marriage, etc), or any other door.
If people are serious about getting married they should get citizenship first, and if they can't, then the other party should go with them back to their country if the chances of them staying there as a married couple are better. Why on earth should someone be able to become a citizen or get indefinate leave to remain, just because they are married?!?! Since when do the private rights of 2 individuals have the ability to ride over the rights of the nation as a whole to chose who is allowed to immigrate here!
So what if certain countries prioritise citizens from certain places, that is their perogative!
Why is it, if the British people decide they want a tougher position on immigration (which they do) a small minority of the politically correct set decide that that view is not permitted somehow. We are in a democracy and you should accept that we don't want our country to be changed by mass immigration. End of story!
silentmajority
A FEW FACTS FOR SILENT MAJORITY
31.07.2005 13:40
The Human Rights Act was interpreted by Lord Falconer to allow Charles to marry Camilla yet the Home Office is prepared to breach the right of people in the UK to marry their person of choice.
My daughters husband has been tortured he was burnt with hot metel rod's and cigarettes, stabbed in the chest, and beaten with rifle butts. A year later he was working with his brother on his farm, a jeep holding 6 soldiers stopped and they opened fire Francis managed to escape his brother was shot and killed. He then came to Britain. Have you watched Hotel Rwanda??
How many Jews returned to Germany after the war?? So how easy do you think it is for torture victims to return to their homeland?
I hope you are true to your beliefs and don't shop in corner shops, eat from take away's etc because without immigrants Britain would be a very different place. Go buy yourself an uninhabited island and see how long you can last with your attitude!!
Barbara Evans
Barbara Evans
e-mail:
barbara3@ntlworld.com
ok
31.07.2005 14:16
So? That was in the past, we have no control over that, but we can control the present and the future. The Royal Family married immigrants who were legal here. Michael Howard's grandparents immigration status is debatable as it was said they were here legally actually.
"The Human Rights Act was interpreted by Lord Falconer to allow Charles to marry Camilla yet the Home Office is prepared to breach the right of people in the UK to marry their person of choice. "
Well, they aren't preventing you from getting married, they are just looking at the immigration status of the other person. Why on earth should getting married mean you are suddenly exempt from the normal immigration rules, that is just an utter scam otherwise.
"My daughters husband has been tortured he was burnt with hot metel rod's and cigarettes, stabbed in the chest, and beaten with rifle butts. A year later he was working with his brother on his farm, a jeep holding 6 soldiers stopped and they opened fire Francis managed to escape his brother was shot and killed. He then came to Britain. Have you watched Hotel Rwanda?? "
Why did he cross so many peaceful countries to come HERE then?? There are plenty of other countries he could have gone to that are much closer than the UK. People come to the UK because they know it is easier to stay here and that the benefits are better, fact, why else would they come all this way when there are closer countries.
"How many Jews returned to Germany after the war?? So how easy do you think it is for torture victims to return to their homeland? "
Not many, and I expect it is hard, but we can't allow that to basically undermine our immigration system and give people a secondary way to settle here fulltime. Asylum is given until it is safe to go back. That is what was decided by the MP's who we voted for many years ago when Britain first offered asylum. As soon as it is safe to go back they must go back, that is the deal, if the law wants changing then we should be consulted about this.
"I hope you are true to your beliefs and don't shop in corner shops, eat from take away's etc because without immigrants Britain would be a very different place. Go buy yourself an uninhabited island and see how long you can last with your attitude!! "
Immigrants who come here legally aren't generally a problem. What people object to is this underhand way that people are immigrating here through the asylum system and staying here forever, long after their home country has become safe enough to return.
Most people don't want Britain to become anymore multicultural thanks very much, and like it as it is. I know that view isn't shared here but that is the basic truth for most people in the UK, so why don't those who disagree (like your daughter!) go and find a nice place where they are in a minority (seeing as thats the net effect of all this immigration) and it is nice and non-white and Islamic. Oh yeah, forgot, they are all dangerous and have poor human rights records!
silentmajority
Poinltless dialogue with racist overtones
31.07.2005 15:15
"Most people don't want Britain to become anymore multicultural thanks very much, and like it as it is. I know that view isn't shared here but that is the basic truth for most people in the UK, so why don't those who disagree (like your daughter!) go and find a nice place where they are in a minority (seeing as thats the net effect of all this immigration) and it is nice and non-white and Islamic. Oh yeah, forgot, they are all dangerous and have poor human rights records!
Nobody is going to convert silentmajority by responding to his/her agenda - and the indications are that silentmajority understands that there are many on this site who have informed opinions that disagree strongly with the racist implications of what s/he has written.
Lets try not to bite on those and return instead to the issue of "human rights" and dangerousness, which are directly relevant.
Should Jessica have to live in Iran to be with the man she loves? Should Jessica have to be alone in Iran when he is detained and tortured, or killed? I suggest not, and certainly not on the whim of some "civil servant" armed with racist and sexist directives.
We do not need government permission to fall in love. We do not need to interview our loved ones to ensure that they have been granted residency before we committ to a relationship with them. That is a nonsense.
Barbara Evans, I hope that your daughter is linking up with Jessica, so that they, together with others in the same permission, can join together to challege the legality of these decisions and to provide a resource for the many who are sure to follow.
No Borders
Racism Angle!!!!!!!!
31.07.2005 18:30
We have a meeting with our lawyer on Wednesday and will certainly bring up the Racism Issue. There is a report on HO site re immigration officers, refusals and the percentage of American, Canadian and Australian refusals, is far less than other countries.
One last message for Silentmajority though he/she is not very silent. My son-in-law wants to return to his homeland, but only when it is safe to do so. Also my daughter my husband and family all support Francis financially and that is our choice. It has nothing to do with you.
Barbara Evans
Barbara Evans
I 2nd and 3rd that!
31.07.2005 20:12
Jessica Siavoshy RE: 'JUSTCE4HOSSEIN'
e-mail:
justice4hossein@aol.com
Homepage:
http://www.justice4hossein.com
Where are the rules?
31.07.2005 22:03
Frankly I am appalled by the state of Britain's immigration website.
Compare:
With:
Quick link to the kind of immigration we're talking about here:
I emigrated to NZ and it seemed rightly hard and complex - but at least I could clearly see what was going on - prior to lodging my application I was certain it would be accepted. I found the information provided for punters to be sufficient but as should be the case all the rules that the officials use in processing your application are available.
Stewart
Most people ?!!!
31.07.2005 22:20
vocal minority
asylum seekers, forced migrants, immigrants & other people's rights
01.08.2005 13:06
I hope Jessica and Barbara's daughter will be able to go very far in their case, even the ECHR court if necessary. As a person of mixed European/immigrant parentage living in the UK, I find it extraordinary that I can marry and live here whoever I like who is non-European and a UK citizen who has lived all his/her in this country is being denied this right. Beside the horrendous suggestion to send an refugee to an area of persecution, as a feminist the fact that it is suggested to the female spouse that should follow her husband and it might not be suggested to a male spouse in the same way is highly offensive too (although as said, this needs to be proven with cases). In anycase, would the ECHR challenge both on basis of Art 8 (right for one to live with his/her spouse and right not to be separated from close family members such as parents)?
In the meantime if there is a movement to raise a challenge in the UK by collecting evidence on cases and challenging the HO policies (may be through Parliament) I would join. In the meantime hope the media will continue to cover the progess of these cases.
Sophia
Sophia
it applies to men same as women
01.08.2005 17:08
article 8 says there is a right to family life but this is looked at in conjunction with the governements "duty" to maintain immigration controls. the courts have interpreted this as meaning that if the non-brit spouse can go back and apply to come back in under the immigration rules they usually have to do this- usually ignoring such factors as work, kids, how long entry clearance takes, how incompetent and corrupt some entry clearance procedures are, health and so on. the courts have accepted that expecting
the spouse to leave and apply for re-entry may in some limited circumstances be disproportionate -eg people who would have to return to Iraq and might be unable to make the application at all.
in cases of asylum seekers - who have a fear of return- the home office assumes that if their case was rejected [ by them] and an appeal dismissed by an "independent" adjudicator then they have nothing to fear- which begs the question why they don't just get on a plane, fill in a visa application form and come back- perhaps because the home office decision making system -along with the appeal system- isn't as safe as they make out.
as far as immigration controls go- many people seem happy with them as long as it applies to someone else. when it is their fiance, their mate's wife or their friend they see the injustice and stupidity of the whole system. which is why the No Borders position makes more sense then people give credit for .
good luck to the two cases above.
mike t
i'm a white british man
01.08.2005 17:09
Never mind "have you seen Hotel Rwanda" - have you seen The Day After Tomorrow - ? the scene where Mexico closes the border to US citizens fleeing a disaster area. You never know when you might find the boot on the other foot.
my name
Thanx Sopha
01.08.2005 18:54
Thanx also for other comments. Ashley will go to Burundi with Francis if she has to, but the Foreign Office is advising against all travel except with a UN mission and even then your safety cannot be guaranteed. The Embassy has been closed and the nearest one is in Rwanda. The roads are closed at 4pm everyday!!!!!!!!!! How then would they be able to obtain the documents required??
Barbara
Barbara
public expense?
02.08.2005 21:58
"The Home Office claim that Hossein must travel back to Iran and apply for an entry clearance, and that Jessica is free to accompany him at public expense,"
mean you get a tax paid ticket to your spouse's home country? what class can you fly? excuse the flippancy , i cant beleive the expense of our present 'immigration system'. Quite apart from stopping a basic human right of free association (articled or not..) the governemnt has found a way to make us all pay...
it seems the system is geared to prevent entry of the poor. I dont think racism or womens rights is as much an issue as money here. racism comes into play when certain nationalities (or races) are 'expected' to be poor. sexism is a consequence of our biased marriage systems, and, again, wealth disparity. would be intersting to see how Uk/japan couples get on.
from what i understand the uk resident partner must officially have circa £10 000 (savings) to allow a partner to stay in UK. i guess this has increased with febs law. at least the immigration officials could have the decency to say directly how much is required to get married, so us lesser mortals can figure out a way to miscegenate in peace.
ian
No Official Figure
04.08.2005 16:04
Barbara
Barbara
nothing concrete
05.08.2005 23:22
this gives them a wide remit to judge cases 'on their merits', and neatly avoids any clear statement of what it actually costs to become a UK citizen. and the chance of appeal is undermined if the goal posts arent clear.
I don't know if it's better they were clear on this; if they were the price, or 'relevant' employment conditions, are likely to be higher. But at least we'd know the financial requirements and could adjust accordingly. It illustrates the 'we'll take the tortured' but 'no economic migrants' is hypocrisy, but doesn't help us norms to get on with our chosen lives.
Good luck to you, seems your options are to find a loophole or fight your case on whatever sexist/racist/eurorights grounds you can find. no love without money? but then love can aleays find a way....
ian
Legal Wagle: EU nationals need to ask Permission to stay too!
09.09.2005 10:41
I'm an Italian national residing in the UK since 1991.
Never ever have i had to legally justify my presence here as it went undisputed given that i'm an EU national.
BUT...priort to getting married to my fiance', a non-EU national who came here with a fiance VISA from his country (cost £260), I was asked to prove that i had the legal right to be here!! i had to send my passport off to the Home Office with abundant documentation to prove that i had been a tax payer for the past 5 years etc...to get the Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK.
Then we had to ask permission to get married (cost £60), then after the wedding we had to file another application (cost £335) and 5 months on we still dont know if he can stay for another 2 years. He has no right to work, whether paid or unpaid. We are forbidden to ask for any welfare benefits for the next 5 years (if i were british it would be 2).
No one is asking that we should get benefist, but hey, i'd like to point out that I'm still asked to pay tax, NI and council tax which i do happily.
Is it fair to be forbidden to work, be refused state help and expect your spouse to do it all?
Yes, immigration rules could prevent people from marrying as one could think twice about all of this and decide to go about with a broken heart for a few years, rather than facing a broken marriage because of stress due to the impossibility to lead a dignified life!
Thank you,
sara
Sara
Hope it all goes well
27.09.2005 20:59
My husband was deported over three years ago and we are only now allowed to apply for him to return - we fell under the old rules when you could not aply for re-entry straight away.
The fight is not yet over, I await the next reason they wil turn us down but we are still going strong against all the odds. at least he was not from as a dangerous country so I have been able to visit him fairly regularly. It has not always been safe though and after being shot at there I decided enough was enough - the Home Office just have not agreed - yet!! they will give up beofre we do!!
As for the negative comments here - well firstly 'silentmajority' you are not the silent majority in my part of the country. We have a declining population here and NEED new skilled immigrants (my hubby works in IT).
As for the points that this was some sort of feminist agenda - get real!!! the facts speak for themselves - how many men have you came accross battling for their wives to stay - I have trawled through every published IAA decision in the last year and have came accross TWO!!! - Coincidence - I think not. More likely the underlining belief that our immigration system has that the home of a couple should be the man's home country and therefore as women, we are expected to leave our homes. My husband had not been home for 12 years and still they expected me to leave and go there!!! I have seen enough South East Asian wives in the UK to know it is not the same in return!!!
Still trying
Im in the same position as jessica
05.07.2006 21:55
I can understand what your going through because im going through the same pain and suffering. Im a british born muslim girl from a muslim family. We all have british passports as we were born and bred here. Im a medical student from a top university in uk. I fell in love with a asylum seeker. The government wont let us marry. Theyr telling me to go to Iraq (where hes from) or a bordering country (jordan or iran) to make an entry clearance application. Iraq (that is the greatest joke ever) ??????!!!
But how? Im a medical student. Im studying to be a doctor in UK. Why? to improve the health and help the british public. to help the government. what did i get in return ? nothing.
God knows whether hel be accepted. I had to fight my parents to let me marry him because even though we were both muslims, we were from different cultures. In any eastern families they want their children to marry within the same backgrounds.My parents finally accepted him. and now the british government wont let me.
Where is the humanity in uk? the democracy? Why cant we love and marry the people we want to?
Looks like every time we like anyone when wer out in town and we like someone the first thing we will have to ask them their name, age ,what they do ....and passport.
How crazy and deranged is that... I have to make an entry clearance application at 21 yrs old. Those ppl in the embassies basically have my future in their hands,
That feels awful.
I understand how jessica feels. Im being treated the same way. Im just hoping the govt wake up and realise that people are suffering because of this. It isnt fair.. it isnt right.
and whatever foolish ignorant person thinks that asylum seekers should be thrown out the country... they need to reeducate themselves.. when half of the public goes out on the weekends to go clubbing- where do they usually go buy food from in the night? takeaways (MAINLY owned by foreigners).. go to the hospitals... majority of the doctors ... mainly foreigners...
foreigners contribute to uk economy... first uk launches crazy wars against countries which we have nothing to do with.,.. then our govt introduces crazy marriage rules breaching human rights... God knows what the uk govt will do next
we should petition to the governement. because whats happening isnt fair.
many thanks for reading this
habiba
Habiba
whats gonna happen to us?
02.02.2007 01:32
Wish both couples lots of luck
Kat
Kasia
e-mail:
capacitors@tlen.pl
TCAR - Saturday, 19th May 2007 - National Day of Action
14.05.2007 21:07
To find out more, visit:
Citizen Sputnik
Regarding "sham" marriages...
08.09.2010 16:06
I've read about how many women from third-world countries have used their western husbands as a means to enter his country then divorce him once they get citizenship papers or whatever they intending to get from him in the first place. Aren't they also shams? They have lots of such cases all over the western world too and I DON'T see the UK being any different in this regard! What's their justification for the unequal enforcement of their policies and being stricter on the British woman-Foreign man couples?
If they can't justify this illogical tendency, it sounds like old-fashioned sexism and racism with a FLIMSY veil of legality on top of it! Sounds like the old conservative men of the Home Office can't bear the thought of losing "their" women to foreigners!
Sorry if I come of as incendiary but that's the only way this unequal enforcement makes any sense!
Antonio
Besides its the 21st century...
08.09.2010 16:14
Hope the two get their justice and that this anomalous Home Office practice gets changed!
Antonio