Zimbabwean Asylum Rights Demo @ Speakers Corner, Nottingham

Interviews, collected and edited from the event

"The more immigrants the better" Are these people living in the real world? Still, he shouldn't have too many worries judging by the current dire situation.

Some more photos from the demo.

"The more immigrants the better" may not be the best slogan, but the heart's in the right place. If you don't believe in border controls then there's nothing wrong with that. We should always contest the idea of nations states and borders between them, which are completely artificial, created by ruling classes, especially European colonial rulers of years gone by.

Someone once said the working class has no country!! The sooner we realise that the better, and point the finger at a capitalist system that has deliberately maintained divisions between people based on bogus ideas of nations, 'ethic origin' or colour of skin fro its own ends. Africa, as was many other parts of the globe, colonised to make money, pure and simple. People living their now are still suffering the consequences.

Of course many asylum seekers would ideally go back to their communities and families if it was safe to do so. Who would not want to be near their family and friends? Plus asylum seekers that are deemed to have 'failed' in their claims are in dire poverty in Britain as they are not allowed to work and support themselves, so many actually choose to go back to extreme danger rather than live like that, pretty well forced to do so by our government's inhumane rules. We should continue to support those who want to stay on Britain.

"The more immigrants the better" isnt the best slogan at all. Most long term immigrants come here because of warfare due to climate change & fight over resources funded & backed by corporations. Temporary migrant workers on visa come from poland etc to work for abit & then go home, alot of them are not staying here, just they work cheaper for companies & householders not willing or unable to pay local workers a fair wage.
My mums family came here due to warfare, its a great country I love it here, but my grandparents would have loved not to have had to moved due to Hitlers & Stalins invasions & takeover of poland. Most people dont want to have to move thousands of miles& this island is becoming overcrowded, especially areas in innercities where alot of people from warzones come to live at first like NG7,radford,forest fields etc.
We need less warfare & the more immigration the better isnt true, in any world sometimes border controls would be necessary to stop disease or wmd's& plants animals etc that can destroy local habitats, Borders are necessary!
No Borders slogans, turn people off & are confusing

Corporations need to stop investing in warfare,oil & guns that create alot of immigration,refugees & do cooperative business.

Greensyndicalist, you write:
"this island is becoming overcrowded"

What do you actually mean by this?

"in any world sometimes border controls would be necessary to stop disease or wmd's& plants animals etc that can destroy local habitats"

But we don't need borders to stop the spread of disease/plants/animals within existing states. Also, why weren't these things a problem before national borders were errected? I don't see what WMD have got to do with this. I can't remember the last time I saw a weapon of mass destruction respect a border!

Immigration control is a relatively new thing in Britain and as far as I'm aware it's influence has been nothing but pernicious. Tear down the borders!

It is sometimes argued that Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech had the effect of making a rational debate in Britain about immigration nigh impossible. (Melanie Phillips for one example). I suspect that the intellectual context before Powell was not exactly conducive to rational discourse either. However, the point remains that for a long time it has not been possible to question the ‘anti-racist'’ perspective of ‘no to immigration controls’, 'Open the borders' ‘There welcome here’ or similar – usually pronounced with a tone of high moral superiority.

As for 'The More Immigrants the Better', (top that one for Political correctness!), fine for the middle class lefties from Wollaton, Lowdham and Burton Joyce, after all one can always use an extra maid or gardener, but not so good for working class people frozen in the inner city and on the estates who are competing for jobs, NHS provision, housing, public transport, schooling and living space. The slogan 'The More Immigrants the Better' is not only juvenile, it is positively inane.

Somewhere along the line it has to be proposed that the indigenous people of a country, any country, have rights too!

Still, I suppose National Nihilism makes the middle class leftie feel good about themselves -and that's the main thing! At least the photos should give the fascists a good laugh if and when they are picked up by Redwatch.

For years it was impossible to argue against 'multi-culturalism' without being termed 'racist'. Now, it is clear that this policy has led to apartheid style segregation in, for example, Oldham and Bradford with 'No Go' areas. Fervent exponents of Multi-culturalism such as Trevor Phillips have now denounced it as a policy without a word of apology as to their methodology which was designed to intimidate anyone who did not agree with them.

Recognition of 'cultural diversity' has led to a situation where completely uneducated Muslim Iman's have positively been invited into Britain to rail against women, gays, Jewish people and the 21st century using the most vicious invective without a word of criticism from the 'anti-racist' lefties.

It will never happen, but what is needed is an honest response where there is a moratorium on immigration for a specified period of time, say two years where nobody is allowed in. This could allow for the whole rotten system to be sorted out and the Beresovskys and Balkan gangsters to be excluded whilst, in my opinion, somewhat more pressing cases are properly considered.

Of course, for the we don’t think that borders should exist contingent, it is heresy even to suggest that people trafficking, drug running, Islamist Terrorism or organised crime exist.

With some estimates projecting 30 million refugees being created as one consequence of global warming, a mature debate on immigration is certainly needed rather than the token ‘feel good’ lifestyle politics of much of todays ‘anti-racist’ milieu.

Diseases, floods and weapons are not controlled by borders. Nor are capital, big business or the exploitation of labour.
Borders are artificial barriers created to benefit capital and the bosses, who move about freely, while restricting the rest of us. And the less we have, the more we are restricted. So asylum seekers usually get the roughest deal of all.

This planet belongs to all of us, and we should all have the ability to travel to the part we want. If that means one part becomes a little overcrowded - well, those who find that uncomfortable can always go somewhere less crowded.

What right do we have, just because of the accidents of our births, to claim this part of the world as our own and try to keep others out? Would we still feel the same if we had been born in Zimbabwe rather than England?

In Poor Law days, many people were restricted from moving from their village to another one. Does that seem reasonable to us, today? Borders and immigration controls are the same principle, on a larger scale.

Generally, those who object the most to immigration into this country are the first to buy a property in Spain or somewhere else sunny, and preferably cheaper. Then they can stay in their nasty little enclaves and avoid foreigners.

Agree with Barabara.

But let's also be clear that for this demo at least, it was about Zimbabwean people demanding asylum from persecution.

Most of these people actually want to return when they know it's safe enough, just not when our hypocritical govt says it is. This could actually happen sooner rather than later depending on election results.

What asylum seekers are protesting about most is continual threat of deportation or detention, and lack of possibility of working while waiting for their cases to heard (and threat of complete destitution if they are turned down). All this after they have had the terrible experiences that made them decide to flee in the first place.

---
From a flyer to inform journalists...
 http://www.presswise.org.uk/files/uploaded/Reporting%20Asylum%20and%20Refugee%20Issues.pdf

Who is an ‘illegal asylum-seeker’?

NO-ONE. This term is always incorrect. It cannot be illegal to seek asylum since everyone has the fundamental human right to request asylum under international law.
The term ‘bogus asylum-seeker’ is also inaccurate and misleading as it pre-judges the outcome of an asylum application – rather like describing a defendant as entering a ‘bogus plea of innocence’ during a trial.

The flier continues:

Who is an asylum-seeker?

Anyone who has applied for asylum against persecution under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and is waiting for a decision.

Who is a refugee?

Anyone who has been granted asylum under the UN Convention, to which the UK is a signatory along with 144 other countries. The precise legal definition in Article 1 of the Convention refers to a ‘refugee’ as a person who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

What about those fleeing general conflict?

People who do not qualify for refugee status may be granted humanitarian protection allowing them ‘leave to remain’ in the UK for a defined or indefinite period, if they cannot safely return to their home country. UNHCR describes
these people as ‘refugees’.

Can those not granted refugee status or temporary leave to remain be sent back home?

YES – although their country of origin might refuse to accept returnees or return may not be possible. Such individuals will generally not be eligible to receive UK
benefits or support, nor are they legally entitled to work. In some cases they will be held in detention.

See full details at  http://www.presswise.org.uk/files/uploaded/Reporting%20Asylum%20and%20Refugee%20Issues.pdf

Ted Talbot wrote:
"Now, it is clear that this policy has led to apartheid style segregation in, for example, Oldham and Bradford with 'No Go' areas."

Have you ever been to these 'No Go' areas? Or have you just read about them in a paper? Do they really exist except in the fevered imaginations of Dail Mail columnists?

"Recognition of 'cultural diversity' has led to a situation where completely uneducated Muslim Iman's have positively been invited into Britain to rail against women, gays, Jewish people and the 21st century using the most vicious invective without a word of criticism from the 'anti-racist' lefties."

Yes, hardly a day goes by without the powers that be in Britain inviting another shipload of radical clerics in from the Middle East...! Are you on another planet Ted, or have you just been worked into a frenzy by the right-wing press? Surely a more plausible explanation for the popularity of such people is the level of racism that goes unaddressed in this country. To say that they haven't been criticised by those on the left is also a rather selective view of the world. Sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic (or islamaphobic for that matter) people +of all backgrounds+ are rightly criticised by those who remain unhypocritical and hold a left perspective.

"At least the photos should give the fascists a good laugh if and when they are picked up by Redwatch. "

You seem to know a lot about that Ted. Got a subscription?

I dare say that if you tried to explain to a medieval serf, who was not allowed to leave his village, that one day we'd all be able to live wherever we wanted in the whole country (just like the Rich), he might have difficulty imagining the possibility of such a set up.

I should think "Wouldn't everybody just move to London?" might be the common sense reply.

Many present day wage earners have similar difficulties imagining a society radically different from the one surrounding them, and evaluate all questions using the limits of the prevailing common sense.