ninme

The Times - Bond of Trust Britain has everything to gain from protecting Iraqi interpreters

In the searing heat of Basra, British troops patrol through deadly street ambushes, mounted by al-Mahdi Army gunmen fielding new and increasingly sophisticated Iranian weapons. The death of Private Craig Barber, which we report today, illustrates the dangers. These would be greater still without the local knowledge and language skills of their Iraqi interpreters. These unarmed civilians not only share the operational dangers by day; when they go home they risk vengeful assaults from within their own communities. They have shown not only courage but also loyalty. There is a bond of trust between them and the British military that goes beyond battlefield camaraderie. These men have wagered their own lives and the safety of their families on Britain’s pledge to restore order to their torn country.

Which, um, they haven’t actually done yet. This thing on? Hello?

For years to come, military and counter-terrorism operations are going to require the services of trusted speakers and writers of Arabic. These Iraqi interpreters could come to Britain not as asylum-seekers, but as valued additions to the workforce. Many of them are highly qualified graduates; they could continue to serve the Armed Forces not just as interpreters but as analysts or language teachers. GCHQ could surely make use of them to monitor terrorist traffic; so most probably could MI5 and the police. These people, proven patriots, may one day return to Iraq. To deny them an escape now is to sign their death warrant. It is as simple as that, Minister.

What a concept. You could actually let them immigrate. “What, you mean people would come here for reasons other than getting on the dole and becoming criminals?” “Yes! They could work!” “No!” It’s like us and the Mexicans. “We have to let them come illegally!” “Why can’t we let them come legally?” “Something to do with Ted Kennedy and the 60s… Shadup!”

The Times - Abandoned - the 91 Iraqis who risked all

Britain was accused yesterday of abandoning 91 Iraqi interpreters and their families to face persecution and possible death when British forces withdraw.

Which perhaps leads one to ask the question: Why the hell are they withdrawing?!?!

The Times has learnt that the Government has ignored personal appeals from senior Army officers in Basra to relax asylum regulations and make special arrangements for Iraqis whose loyal services have put their lives at risk.

Very honorable.

One interpreter, who has worked with the Army since 2004 and wanted to start a new life in Britain after British forces pull-out was told by Downing Street that he would receive no special favours and to read a government website.

No wonder the Democrats (hell, and half the Republicans) are so keen. This is right up their ally. I mean alley. Sorry.

There is mounting evidence of a campaign by militants to target “collaborators” as British forces prepare to leave. Hundreds of interpreters and other locally engaged staff working for the coalition have been kidnapped, tortured and murdered over the past four years.

Again, if the militants are still operating with such brazenness, why…?

Denmark has already made special arrangements to help its Iraqi staff and the Americans are set to accept 7,000 Iraqi refugees.

Oh good. Just don’t tell the Democrats or half the Republicans.

“This is cowardly,” Mr Kinani The Times. “The British make us easy food near the lion’s mouth.”

This Mr Kinani was told that he wasn’t eligible for asylum. Let’s look at this asylum business closer, shall we?

Daily Mail (July 18) - Reprieve for Iranian who faced death by stoning

An Iranian convert to Christianity has been saved from being deported amid fears she would be stoned to death in her home country.

The 29-year-old, known only as Samar, was due to be put on a plane on Wednesday night to Tehran.

But after an eleventh hour intervention by Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe at Prime Minister’s Questions, the flight has been put on hold. …

Samar became a Christian while still living in Iran to escape a forced marriage. Three years ago she fled to the UK, settled in Bournemouth, Dorset, and applied for asylum.

But her bid was rejected, despite Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court in May issuing a death warrant, announcing she would be stoned to death.

Well, she’s in Britain, so she’s managed a couple reprieves. But still, she doesn’t qualify for asylum. Let’s look at another case:

The Sunday Times (Jan 23, 2007) - Tragedy of the truthful immigrant, by Minette Marrin

…Coleman is British, by any standards except those of the Home Office regulations. Although he was born in independent Zimbabwe, his father was born there while it was still the British colony of Southern Rhodesia and his mother was born in India; his father’s father was a British subject. His paternal great-grandfather was a British army surgeon, as was his maternal great-grandfather.

His mother’s family has been English since 1160 and her father served in the British Army and worked as a prisoner of war on the notorious bridge over the River Kwai. It is hard to imagine anyone more British in spirit and in fact, yet, because of a technicality, Coleman cannot have a British passport, cannot stay here and will soon be shipped back.

Not only does he have some historical claim on this country, he also has a compassionate claim; nobody can possibly imagine that a white man, whose family has fled, can live or work safely in Zimbabwe, in that nightmare of mayhem, anti-white racism and confiscation.

And another one:

In this depressing context consider the case of Roberto Malasi, the robber and convicted murderer. He and his family came to Britain in 1995, seeking asylum from Angola, and in 1999 they were given indefinite leave to remain here. Now 18, when he was 16 he shot dead a woman holding a baby at a christening, while robbing the guests with his younger brother; he escaped, went on the run boasting about this killing and soon afterwards stabbed to death a girl he thought had “dissed” him.

Before these crimes he was in and out of care, got little or no education and lived what police call a chaotic life. He will be sentenced for the killings next month and faces a long time in prison. He does not, however, seem to face deportation, much to the resentment of his victims’ families, also recent arrivals from Africa. His lawyers are likely to argue that Malasi would be subject to persecution as a notorious murderer if he were sent back to Angola. On past form they are quite likely to succeed where Coleman failed — even though it is his crime that would supposedly endanger Malasi.

How ’bout this one:

The Times (May 11, 2006) - Afghan hijackers win asylum after six-year struggle

The nine Afghans were intent on escaping the Taleban when they hijacked a Boeing 727 in Afghanistan on an internal flight from Kabul in February 2000. They forced the crew to fly to Stansted, in Essex. Armed with guns and explosives, they held the plane at the airport for 70 hours surrounded by police and SAS troops before giving themselves up.

The cost to the taxpayer of the hijacking and its aftermath of court hearings and support for the hijackers — who have not been allowed to work — has been unofficially estimated at £10 million.

Here’s another one:

Times Online (July 9, 2005) - Europe’s police asked to step up hunt for Morocco-born scholar. By Daniel McGrory

SECURITY forces across Europe have been asked to intensify their search for a religious scholar given asylum in Britain who is suspected of planning a series of terrorist atrocities.

One more:

Telegraph (April 14, 2005) - The chaos that allows a failed asylum seeker to stay and kill, By Philip Johnston

Yet the news yesterday that an Algerian asylum seeker, whose case was turned down by the authorities, was able to remain in the country to join a terrorist plot and, ultimately, to kill a police officer illustrates far more graphically than hours of party political posturing how badly the procedures have broken down. The killer, who went under a variety of names, including Kamel Bourgass, even used the envelope that contained his rejection letter from the Immigration Service to store recipes for ricin and other deadly chemicals that were intended to be used in a terror attack.

So, basically, the more harm you do to Britain, the more likely Britain will allow you to stay. The more harmless you are to Britain, deserving you are of asylum, or, god forbid you’ve actually provided them some service, at risk to yourself, no less, you’re screwed.