By sending Zimabwean asylum seekers back to Malawi knowing these people will eventually end up back in Zimbabwe where they fled from and where they face certain death? This is just a loophole in visa laws exploited by Britain to reach targets for removal and is virtual murder. It was Britain was is not who colonised these parts of Africa and like everywhere they interfere with other honourable tribal peoples lives,death and suffering ensues?
2007-10-27 02:03:59 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Nobody should be extradited or repatriated to any country where they would face torture or execution. That is simply the end of the matter. The government commit a heinous crime every time they do such a thing - and such a thing should not be tolerated.
However, you try telling that to the raving masses of the Daily Hate readers.
2007-10-27 06:06:47 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
What a dumb question, Zimbabwe formally know as Rhodesia was a rich and fertile country when run by Britain, all the people had work, peace and food in their stomach, then they wanted independence from Britain and since that day they have slipped back to tribal wars and with Robert Mugabe at the helm have gone back to the stone age and now people like you want us to take them in, well as i see it, if they want British protection, then they should accept British rule and let us take over the country again and run it properly, and Zimbabwe is not the only country in Africa that needs British rule. this is not saying we should try to recapture our glory days of an Empire, but if we took over these countries again and put them back on their feet, then we would not have thousands of them coming here asking for protection and they could be safe in their own back yard, this in turn would bring security to them and financial gain for Britain, which in turn we could use that money to educate the Zimbabweans for a better life for them and their children.
2007-10-27 22:07:18 · answer #2 · answered by junction 19 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ladymoonlight - There are lots of jobs in Britain. If immigrants who can hardly speak English can find jobs, then the British unemployed should be able to as well. The fact is, many of the unemployed just don't want a job. It's easier to scrounge off the state, or live by crime. And how many homeless British families are there? I'm not aware of any.
And you're right when you say we don't 'owe' asylum seekers anything. But, speaking as a good citizen, I'm glad we help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
2007-10-27 08:46:33 · answer #3 · answered by thingy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do people go on and on and on about "When Britain colonised parts of Africa . . blah de blah"?
Wht has that got to do with anything? The colonial days are long gone. Zimbabwe has its longed for independence. So what does that have to do with Britain?
If people are being murdered and tortured in Zimbabwe that is the fault of the regime currently in power. They are not under British control anymore. Therefore it is nothing to do with us. Any attempt to get involved would be seen as an attempt to return Zimbabwe to Colonial Rule.
As for Asylum Seekers I suggest to speak to some of the genuine unemployed and homeless British families and see if they welcome large numbers of incomers into this country. Especially the ones who have been dumped in a Bed & Breakfast and forgotten about by their local council, whilst Asylum Seekers are given Social Housing. How d'you think they feel about it?
Sorry but we do not owe these Asylum Seekers anything.
Zimbabwe created its own mess, it has nothing to do with us. So give it a rest with the "colonial oppression" drivel. Those oppressing and murdering people in Zimbabwe are Africans not white colonials.
2007-10-27 06:22:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
all of us who harms toddlers could desire to get the dying sentence then artwork on case via case bases for grownup. i could say particular to the Q if the sufferer became bodily or mentally harm in a manner that the guy could desire to no longer recuperate. on the different hand i think of all who falsely accuse additionally must get an identical punishment has the so observed as accused.
2016-12-30 07:41:55 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was wrong for the English to ever colonise Zimbabwe.
Yes, it was wrong for the English to allow a apartheid regime in Zimbabwe.
Yes, it was right for the English to get rid of the apartheid regime in Zimbabwe.
Yes, it was right for England to leave Zimbabwe to its own autonomy.
However it is not the fault of England that the idiots of Zimbabwe elected that sycopath Mugabe.
So instead of the Zimbabweans leaving their country and coming to this country ( who treated your country so badly); over-through that thug and create a democracy; instead of complaining about this country; you numpty.
Don't blame the English, blame yourselves; Mugabe is your elected tyrant not ours.
2007-10-27 10:20:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
From what I can see, not being from Britain, the places Britain had the greatest presence are the ones doing best.
I don't really see your argument.
We were colonized, and we are doing fine in the US.
2007-10-27 06:16:25 · answer #7 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not directly interfering in Zimbabwe though - which is what they should be doing
Mugabe has ruined what was a prosperous country yet no action has been taken to remove him
2007-10-27 02:09:10 · answer #8 · answered by StretfordEnder 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Good send them all back to zimbabwe
2007-10-27 03:54:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am very angry at england's extremely violent past, and I'm not judging the PEOPLE in general, but I have the oddest feeling that this is purely the work of a wolf in sheep's clothing. I suggest their government to realise that their laws and selfish past is causing distrust. I'm not saying America is any better though. Oh, after a harsh comment, I must say: MAN U ROCKS, KILL EVERYONE ELSE!!!!
2007-10-27 02:12:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋