Racist British immigration authorities
Asylum for black brute but not for white policeman
His British great-grandfather fought for his country in the Boer War and on the Somme before the family moved to Zimbabwe. Now Guy Taylor has sought refuge in Britain, fearing a return to his native land would leave him facing persecution.
But despite his pleas for asylum in this country, immigration judges have dismissed his bid and he faces being deported.
Being sent back: Former Zimbabwe police officer Guy Taylor has been refused asylum in the UK
The 31-year-old's case has provoked fury as it follows the decision to allow one of Robert Mugabe's former henchmen to stay in the UK indefinitely.
Phillip Machemedze was involved in 'savage acts of extreme violence', including smashing a man's jaw with pliers and then pulling out his teeth. But last month it emerged an immigration tribunal ruled he cannot be sent back to Zimbabwe, as he fears for his human rights and could face torture.
Mr Taylor, by contrast, fears he could be deported within weeks.
He was born in Zimbabwe but his great-grandfather was Welsh and served in the Army during the First World War. His mother's great-grandfather was born in Dublin and emigrated to South Africa at the turn of the last century.
In his asylum claim, Mr Taylor said that as a former policeman and member of the opposition MDC party he would be targeted by the Zimbabwean authorities who would suspect him of being a British spy. He left the police in 2000 after it came under the influence of Mugabe's ruling Zanu PF party and came to Britain in 2005, where his sister lives.
But judges dismissed his case, saying they were not convinced he was a member of the MDC and that his 'credibility' is damaged as he lived here illegally for two years after his visitor visa expired.
Last night Mr Taylor said: 'If I go back there I will be persecuted. 'I fear for my safety. They are notorious for their brutality. 'I was taken aback that this man, this torturer, can be allowed to stay in the UK and I’m not. I have got a genuine claim for asylum. 'I have put my fears across, I have proved what's going to happen to me, but they won’t listen.'
By contrast, Machemedze has won his case and – failing a successful appeal by the Home Office – will be allowed to stay here indefinitely. The 46-year-old former member of the feared Central Intelligence Organisation inflicted horrific injuries on Mugabe's political opponents.
He came to Britain in 2000 but didn’t claim asylum for another eight years. His wife has been granted asylum and the couple live in Bristol.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America’s Immigration Courts (Backgrounder, Panel Discussion)
2. Fewer Jobs, More Imported (Poverty-Class) Workers (Blog)
3. The Story of Q: The Greedy Search for the Most Exploitative Visa Category (Blog)
4. Awakening from the Dream Act: Sen. Rubio vs. Frank Sharry (Blog)
5. In-Secure Communities (Blog)
6. Misrepresentation in the Coverage Claimed for Secure Communities (Blog)
7. Iraqi Refugee Terrorists (Blog)
8. Two Types of Admission Decisions: the Sensible Way and the American Way (Blog)
9. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Deserves Our Thanks (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment