Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Demo held over detention of asylum family

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 May 2009
Campaigners staged a protest today against the detention of a failed asylum seeker and her young son.
Fatou Felicite Gaye, 38, and four-year-old Arouna are being held at Dungavel detention centre in South Lanarkshire following an early morning raid at a property in Sighthill, Glasgow, yesterday.

Such detentions have drawn widespread criticism in t
he past and today around 20 people held a demonstration outside the UK Border Agency office in the city's Brand Street.

Protesters from the Unity Centre, a Glasgow-based asylum seeker support group, held placards and posters which read 'End detention now' and 'We demand justice'.

Campaigners have described the manner in which the family, from the Ivory Coast, were detained as "heavy-handed".

And an MSP hit out at the fact that a young child was being held in Dungavel, branding the move "an absolute disgrace".

The UK Border Agency insisted all removals were undertaken with "extreme care".

The Unity Centre also pointed out that the raid came days after a pilot project was announced in the city to encourage failed asylum seekers to return home voluntarily.

The campaign group said the pair are due to be deported on Monday.
It is understood Ms Gaye has had a string of appeals to stay in the UK rejected.

Unity said in a statement: "The dawn raid, the first to be carried out in Glasgow for almost a year, was carried out only days after the Home Office announced the start of a pilot project designed to prevent the need to detain asylum-seeking families at all."

The group went on: "Only on Tuesday this week, Fatou had been to report at the Home Office and campaigners at Unity are wondering why on earth the Home Office decided to use such heavy-handed and unnecessary tactics to detain Fatou."

SNP MSP Christina McKelvie, whose constituency covers Dungavel, branded the detention of a child at the centre "an absolute disgrace".
She said: "It has never been right to detain a child in Dungavel and there is no excuse for the UK Government's actions.

"This is a clear and disgraceful breach of Jim Murphy's promise to end the detention of children and breaks the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."

She went on: "The UK Government are detaining a child born in Scotland in an immigration centre that is not fit for children.
"This is an absolute disgrace."

It is understood that officials from the agency arrived at the property where Ms Gaye was staying at around 6.45am yesterday.

She is believed to have been informed by letter before the raid.
It is understood that Ms Gaye had an asylum claim rejected in 2005 and has since had five more appeals refused.

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: "Individuals who have been found by our trained case owners and the independent courts to not be in need of international protection are expected to return home.

"The UK Border Agency always prefers people to leave the UK voluntarily rather than have their return enforced but, where an enforced removal is necessary, family enforcement visits are undertaken with extreme care, allowing as much time as possible for packing and for everything to be clearly explained."

Officers are instructed not to conduct raids before 6.30am, the spokesman added.

The initiative to help failed asylum seekers return home voluntarily was announced by the Scottish Government on Tuesday.

The scheme will be piloted next month in Glasgow and it has been claimed the project could reduce the number of "dawn raids".




Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

15/05/2009 15:02:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

15/05/2009 15:34:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

G Lauder,

15/05/2009 16:26:54
"It is understood that Ms Gaye had an asylum claim rejected in 2005 and has since had five more appeals refused." - I hope that she leaves soon, she must have cost the taxpayer a lot of money. Perhaps if failed asylum seekers, played fair by leaving the UK when their application for asylum was rejected, then there would be no need for a detention centre like Dungavel.

I agree with #2 that asylum seekers should go to the nearest safe country to their country of origin.
4

Tartan Viking,

15/05/2009 17:12:50
If Ms Gaye had an asylum claim rejected in 2005 (and five further appeals refused) what are the Glasgow-based asylum seeker support group actually protesting about? And what 'justice' are they actually demanding?

Seems to me they want the automatic granting of immigrant status to anybody who turns up in this country seeking food, shelter and cash irrespsctive of whether they are here legally or not. Irrespective of the fact that they may have passed through a dozen safe havens on the way here. Where does it end if that is the case?

Can these people explain what would happen if the floodgates opened and a couple of million, or five million, or ten million people arrived seeking the same? What would happen then? Because once the country has set a precedent and let illegal immigrants stay, then why not others? When word gets round the Ivory Coast - they'll all be here.
5

Tartan Viking,

15/05/2009 17:14:31
And if these protestors had any courage in their conviction, they feed, cloth, house and finance these immigrants they so care about.
6

Bill Mac,

ed 15/05/2009 17:29:46
No 3 - The child may have been born here but then that is what is used by asylum seekers to gain permanent residence. The earlier post is correct, there are other safe countries which she and many others decide to bypass because Britain IS the soft option. There is a lot of indigenous hardship here, particularly amongst the elderly, but demonstrating for them is not what these misguided "Glory Seeking" demonstrators are interested in. The so-called heavy handed tactics are the last resort because these failed asylum seekers have tested the system to the limit, and left the authorities have no further options.
7

Tartan Viking,

15/05/2009 19:55:04
#9, TheDisplacedGlaswegian

I agree with what you say about the young child. It's not the best way to treat a youngster - don't think many would argue against this.

What I am a bit miffed about is that, as Big Jock said above, why has it taken so long to deport her. If she was deported when she (obviously)should have been, then there would be no child in the first place. As #8 Bill Mac said, having a child is a way of trying to gain an advantage of the system.

We are a soft country who seem to give more effort to complaining about the treatment of people who shouldn't be here, whilst ignoring the plight of many who have served this country all of their lives but who get a raw deal. I mean, who is standing with placards and demonstrating about the poor pensions some of our finest Old Age Pensioners are getting after serving this country during the war and helping to build it up to the rich and prosperous place it now is? Nobody! We prefer, as a nation it seems, to stick up for people who have not contributed whilst sticking two fingers up to those who should mean the most.
8

Pavla,

Irvine 15/05/2009 21:54:15
i just noticed this article and late now but to all the negative posters can I ask a question?
My family and many others fled Hungary in 1956 after the Russian invasion.they were involved with the resistance in Budapest and fought with small arms against tanks and artillery.Obviously after surrender the Russians hunted down any opposition to re educate them in the gulags.If that happened again as it very possible would we be not be welcomed in the U.K. in the warm way we were at that time.
9

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 15/05/2009 22:07:31
‘DAWN RAID’ .... There is no such thing as an asylum ‘dawn raid. These FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS have been told to prepare for legal and rightful deportation. The term ‘dawn raid‘ is erroneous, the correct term is COLLECTION.

And .... here we go again. Another family landing on Glasgow‘s doorstep, to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, money doled out to etc., etc., etc.. Why didn’t this asylum seeker claim asylum elsewhere such as the nearest safe country? - because Glasgow‘s numerous wee bands of state-funded asylum and refugee groups will pull out every underhand trick to get them here permanently. More like the mother came to Britain, liked what she saw and decided to have some of it for herself - at our expense.

Six appeals refused, at taxpayers expense, and they are still here! Watch this space, this asylum seeking mother and her son will, within the next few days, be given the right to remain in Glasgow, Scotland and Britain.

To Mr Phil Taylor, regional director of the UK Border Agency in Scotland and Northern Ireland ....
There has been a glaring failure on the part of yourself to succeed in the removal of legally failed asylum seekers.
There has also been an unforgivable failure by yourself to stand up for your employees in the face of downright harassment and abuse from asylum support groups. Mr Taylor, you are placed in position by our government, not to assist in the removal of failed asylum seekers, but to con the public that action is being taken to remove failed asylum seekers - a job you do well (lol).
10

Tartan Viking,

15/05/2009 22:33:21
#15. And that is what is fuelling BNP support.

I am not one... but you can easily see why people are turning to this party.
11

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 15/05/2009 23:01:22
To all the people who talk about ‘‘jailing a bewildered 4 year old’’ / ‘‘launching a dawn raid and grabbing a 4 year old Scots born child out his bed and taking him off to jail is out of order’’ / ‘‘the human rights of the child. Can you imagine the distress of being woken up, bundled into a police car, having to abandon all your possesions then being locked up?’’

Quote from a communication from the then Immigration Department:- ‘‘in a recent experiment approximately 40 families we invited to present themselves for deportation but of these, approximately 39 then disappeared and have not been seen since.’’

The asylum seekers don’t have to go to Dungavel, they can leave the country when legally told to go and avoid Dungavel or being collected in the morning. The parents prefer to take their children to Dungavel. No surprise. These were the same parents (doesn’t apply in this case) who dragged their children through how many safe countries in the backs of lorries etc (according to them) to grab Britain’s benefits. These same parents are in breach of the ‘Human Rights’ of their children. If the parents don’t care why should I / we care?
12

Pavla,

Irvine 15/05/2009 23:10:37
Big Jock I was asking a general question if we Scots I was born here and my extended family who have intermarried over 50 years should now go back to Hungary? I just wanted to know if a persecution similar to that time happened again would the Scottish people help as they did in 1956 for which we will be eternally grateful
13

Pavla,

Irvine 15/05/2009 23:34:05
Thanks Big Jock I respect your honesty and I myself don't think if a similar situation arose anyone would be welcomed as we were in the 50s.Maybe it was a different time and the irony was many of my family fought for the international brigade in Spain seeing the rise of Hitler and were imprisoned on return by the Hungarian fascists then freed by the allies and then invaded by the soviets and reoccupied.
14

Observer,,

Glasgow 15/05/2009 23:48:24
The number of women with 4 yr old children with no claim to stay here is miniscule compared to the number of single young men.

Why do they snatch the women and the babies ? Because it is easier than snatching the men.

Doesn't wash with me. This child is innocent he hasn't done anything. If we need to deport people there are others who quite frankly deserve it more than this wee one.
15

Pavla,

Irvine 15/05/2009 23:49:33
Yes Big Jock the rise of the BNP is worrying to people like me and my elderly mother in particular.None in my family think of ourselves as nothing less than Scots and keep some of our customs and have absorbed all of yours which we don't even think about now it's our normal life.The BNP consort with people in Eastern Europe who would turn the clock back 60 years and that would be a tragedy for all of us.
16

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 16/05/2009 00:25:35
Observer,Glasgow at 24 ....

First of all, Observer, they do not ‘‘snatch’’ anybody.

Deporting people from Britain, regardless of whether they are ‘‘single young men, mothers with children, single mothers with children and so on and so on is an extremely hard, nigh impossible task. Regardless of whether the ‘‘child is innocent’’, failed asylum seekers must be deported. Failure to deport this single mother and her offspring will mean we, the British taxpayer will have to foot the bill to house, clothe, feed, educate, pay her lawyers et al .... and she will probably give birth to more of her offspring for us to house, clothe, feed, educate et al. Just where and when the **** is it all going to end? And in passing, we have our own children who are innocent and for the lack of finance are living in poverty and deprivation.

‘‘Doesn't wash with me.’’
17

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 16/05/2009 00:31:10
Pavla,Irvine at 12 ....

When your family and many others fled Hungary in 1956, why did you not return to Hungary when it returned to being a ‘‘safe country’’?
18

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 16/05/2009 00:37:08
Big Jock McDoc at 26 .... ‘‘The BNP can't turn the clocks back even if they did manage to get in power, which is nigh to impossible from the position they are currently in. There would be riots everywhere if they tried.’’

The BNP ARE trying to get into power - I don’t see any riots. If they did get into power, they would have the majority vote - the minority could only protest.
19

Tartan Viking,

16/05/2009 01:37:38
#24 Observer "

"The number of women with 4 yr old children with no claim to stay here is miniscule compared to the number of single young men."

Single young men don't have the luxury of getting pregnant in order to improve their chances of staying in the country. Single young women play the system. You have no proof that single young men outnumber single young women anyway. It's far more likely that the men are deported because they are men and they don;t have children. Stop turning this into some anti-female agenda, It is not.
20

,

16/05/2009 14:52:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Ifan Har,

Scotland 16/05/2009 18:03:33
Firstly, why are they here in the first place???

When the Hungarians and other East European "genuine" refugees arrived here they did not point thier fingers at the first indigenous Scot they saw and loudly shout "Racist"
22

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 16/05/2009 21:08:37
Ifan Har,Scotland at 32 ....

They are here in the first place (not their first place of safety), because they know that once here, they can claim all, and get all, for free.

Try to remove them and their money-guzzling support ‘charities’ scream ‘RACIST’, ‘RACIST’, ‘RACIST’. And who pays for their money-guzzling law-breaking support ‘charities’’ The British taxpayer - we pay to support illegal immigrants and their law-breaking ‘charities‘.
23

gravytrain,

Glasgow 17/05/2009 12:27:17
It's unlikely this lady arrived in Scotland, she was "dispersed" here by the Home Office and she probably woudn't have chosen Scotland if she had the choice, she would have remained in England somewhere (probably London). Seems to me there's an easy solution, the Home Office should stop dispersing Asylum Seekers to Scotland. Keep them in England where it's apparently easier to remove them once their application and multitude of appeals have been turned down. It's clearly not safe to send them here with extreme pressure groups working hard to compromise the system.
24

THE REAL BLOCKEM,

Glasgow 17/05/2009 14:12:01
gravytrain,Glasgow at 34 ....

You’re probably right, very likely she was sent to Glasgow under the National Dispersal scheme. And you are right that she and most other asylum seekers / refugees / economic migrants would not choose to come to Glasgow or Scotland. It’s estimated that circa two-thirds of those asylum seekers granted the right to remain in Scotland, take off for England once they are given their papers. Problem is, once their (our) accommodation is made vacant, another asylum seeking family is moved in. Glasgow is now the revolving back door for asylum seekers wishing to gain residence in England.

There is no easy solution (as far as Glasgow is involved). Circa 1999, Glasgow City Council accommodated circa 475 asylum seekers in this city for an initial payment of £120,000,000 (sic) of British taxpayers’ money. Since then the numbers of asylum seekers in this city has swollen to over eight thousand (the number of heads of house only without counting their dependents?) A farther deal was made with the Home Office for an additional £130.000.000 (sic) two hundred an fifty million pounds in total. All British taxpayers’ money. Glasgow is the only constituency out of thirty-two constituencies in Scotland to do a deal with the Home Office to accommodate asylum seekers.

At present, in Glasgow there are circa 1100 failed asylum seeking families (4,500 including dependents) who refuse point blank to accept our legal decisions that they have no right to be here. We can’t even get rid of the failed asylum seekers who have no right to be in Glasgow, Scotland or Britain.

Part of the ‘solution’ must be to stop funding the money-guzzling, law-breaking asylum support ‘charities’ who use every underhand tactic to assist the failed asylum seekers to avoid legal and rightful deportation.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you feel concerned by the staff shortages in the city’s Indian restaurants?
No, I don’t really like Indian food
Yes, I think it will mean a fall in quality
They’re businessmen, they’ll find a way around it.


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.