to wonder whether those who object to the deportation...

[dolphinsandwhales]

of the 19 year old who claimed asylum from dv after overstaying a tourist visa would like to extend asylum offers to all victims of dv worldwide who live in safe countries?

The case seems ridiculous to me, asylum should be granted to those in genuine cases of persecution etc, Mauritius is not a country that persecutes those in fear of dv. I wonder whether the teachers involved in trying to prevent the deportation would mind losing some pension to pay for all the increased asylum seekers who are fleeing safe countries?

As someone whose sister had to immigrate to Canada to escape a violent husband, in the days when it was relatively easy to immigrate to that country, I don't think people should sneer at dv being used as a reason for asking for assylum.
There are cases in Mexico where women whose ex-husbands are major criminals or politicians have nowhere they can hide inside the country's borders.

Would anyone here have sympathy with a British family who went to the US and overstayed their visa to escape an abusive family situation back home? Even if their daughter got a scholarship to a good school or their son had a great opportunity with a sports team?

I doubt it. We would say that if they wanted to leave the UK to escape a family issue, they should have applied for an appropriate visa to the US, or any other country they wanted to live in.

The government of Mauritius needs to crack down on criminal elements that threaten people and encourage domestic abuse. It is not the problem of the UK government although obviously all countries need to extend a limited amount of asylum to genuine cases every year out of an obligation to the global community. The standard for these cases is set by the asylum courts and they have to be strict in order to be fair to everyone. Not everyone's asylum case will be accepted, inevitably.

So, they overstayed and only then claimed asylum? Hmm. I'm guessing they didn't say a dickiebird about their actual intentions on arrival then. No, I have sympathy for DV sufferers, but we can't be the world's Police, and asylum should be claimed immediately if things are so dire that this is the only option, not at leisure and well after having broken the law. It's this sort of case that means even genuine asylum seekers get lumped into the same righty headlines which so love to stir up racial tensions.

So she was in Mauritius for two years after her mother left her to come to the UK, but when the UK government rejects her claim and tries to send her back, at the expense of the taxpayer, it is claimed she shouldn't be separated from her mother

A lot of people on this thread seem to be confused over the difference between asylum and migration.
If I suffer from DV and decide that it is just now too unbearable to be in the same country as DH, I can emigrate. Some countries will let me apply for a visa, and my glowing references from teachers and bosses will count in my favour when they weigh up if I am an asset to the country and if I should get a visa.

If the law changes in the UK, and suddenly DV is no longer a criminal offence, and victims are being rounded up by gangs, I might have a claim for asylum. Whether or not I did my homework, am photogenic or have some really good friends living in the country where I am seeking asylum won't be taken into account. Just whether I am justified in feeling I cannot safely live in the country I was in before.

Fucking hell this is why people are flocking to fucking UKIP

Because those who are currently in power lack the courage to deport those who are NOT meant to be here

By not following the law we give legitimacy to the far right

That those who are not from here get special treatment

What Fusedog says ^^

Sparechange, "A lot of people on this thread seem to be confused over the difference between asylum and migration.
If I suffer from DV and decide that it is just now too unbearable to be in the same country as DH, I can emigrate"

Unfortunately for a lot of people in this world immigration is not an option. Apart from the fact that, even for those who do qualify, the immigration procedure can take years, which isn't very helpful if you are trying to escape with your live.

Surely, if you are fleeing from any kind of abuse you should have declare that on entry to the country. And the decision is made then whether you can stay or not. Not when it's decided you shouldn't be here. Although quite a lot of asylum seekers disappear once released so what do we do?
Would people's sympathies be the same if the person to be deported was different?
As said before, she was more than happy to be apart from her family until it didn't suit them.
I think we really need to be much firmer.

have to declare that

This country always seems to go for the easy option and deports people who would actually be an asset to the country, while leaving violent criminals to remain here.

Why the assumption that those of us who think she should stay aren't taxpayers? I am. And the taxpayer has already been coughing up for her being held at Yarlswood plus the cost of plane tickets. Far more use to the country would be letting her live normally and take her exams, then she can start paying back the chance given to her by being a useful contributing member of society. Whether or not she was supposed to be here in the first instance, two wrongs do not make a right. I agree with Louise above - go after the violent criminals who are here without permission instead! Or the tax dodging super rich.

So.. anyone who stays here illegally, does a few exams and wins the publics heart should get to stay then? Because you can't have one rule for one...

On a personal level I am sad for her, but we are always sad for nice, decent people on a personal level. We always wish those people from countries where life is more difficult for a variety of cultural and economic reasons could have a safer, easier, more peaceful life.

But there are probably billions of people out there who would be only too happy to take advantage of that and who would try to come here if they thought they could stay.

We have to stick to the rules. Although I agree it's infuriating and bewildering when we are unable to deport serious criminals yet we manage to put this girl back on the plane.

Aren't you all lucky you were born in this country? I hate threads like this. It's only luck that you weren't born in a different country and sit dreaming of moving to the UK. It's only luck that you aren't having to seek asylum for whatever reason too.

DontCare What a load of emotive rubbish. I believe I am incredibly lucky, but that has no bearing on this topic. A lot of people genuinely need our help, genuinely need to come here and live their lives without war, without grief, without danger. But also a lot of people want to come here to take advantage of our resources - I don't blame them but when they do so illegally then the consequences have to be paid.

Lol at lucky to be born in the uk-is that why many brits flock to Mauritius in their thousands every year? Its hardly a third world back water is it? Is she was genuinely fleeing dv then she should have declared that when she arrived here.

Oh, it's not emotive rubbish. It's fact. It's only luck that allows you to sit here and rage against people who want to live here or to the chance to escape violence and come to a safer place. These resources are only "ours" by chance. Have some empathy.

I think you'd all be better hating on violent criminals who are allowed to stay rather than someone who tried to escape violence.

I can't get my head around airlines refusing to take her!!!! When did they become judge and jury .?

dont It is because it has no relevance. Do you know anything about Mauritius? What would you suggest then, to let everyone who has experienced some form of violence to come here? Because if you want this girl to say that's effectively what you're saying. It is not a war ridden country. It is not under a dictator. It is not a dangerous place to live. And if the situation was that dangerous why did her mum leave her there for so long? Why didn't they say they were seeking asylum? No they sauntered in on a tourist visa, stayed illegally and used our resources and expected to stay because of their excuse.

I also hate on criminals who stay here. But I don't think anyone should be able to just waltz in and stay.

And not only that but we are undermining the justice system in Mauritius, who should be able to deal with this 'domestic violence' once she gets back home. We are not the saviour of the world.

www.mauritiusnews.co.uk/2014/03/29/yashika-bageerathi-deported/

Interesting read.

Sorry don't - it really is emotive rubbish. You do not just hand out asylum to people because they're nice or able. You give them asylum if they qualify for it under the law. There are lots of people who may well be great on paper but who simply don't qualify, where is the line drawn? Do they have to go in front of a 'salt to the earth' panel to assess their niceness? No, because the law, both international and domestic, does not provide for that. It's complete crap that only soft targets are removed. We hear about a tiny fraction of cases in the media, and somehow alleged weak enforcement is held up as a reason to ignore the law, ignore overstaying illegally, and have even weaker enforcement? Non sequitur. This whole thing is purely emotive and highly irrational.

It is easy to put a 19 year old girl into a taxi and stick her on a plane.

We seem incapable of deporting the terrorists/those who preach hatred/ the illegal immigrant driving without a licence, insurance or tax who killed my sons friend, the other illegal immigrant who was also driving without licence, insurance or tax who crashed into a parent at school causing such severe injuries that the poor victim never worked again.

Soft target IMO.