We Can't Turn Them Away
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That the interpreters (or otherwise) are doing the job for money is neither here nor there - in that sense they are no different from any other contractor or soldier. Given the desperate state of Iraq there is no shortage of those willing to take huge risks for money, which if anything strengthens the duty of care we should hold for them. I'm quite sure they would many days rather not turn up for work and would never have been under any illusion of free access to a life in the UK on our departure.
Considering we take refugees and immigrants from a myriad of nations, why is Iraq being singled out as a specific risk, and why those working directly for British forces? If you have ever read Home Office refugee paperwork you'd know that they rely almost exclusively on expert witnesses and educated judgements on a wealth of information for each refugee application - it simply isn't an exact science. Under your rationale we could take no refugees from Iraq whatsoever, despite Iraqi refugees being clearly as eligible as any other nation, despite our UN obligations (especially this being a war to uphold UN resolutions afterall) and despite Iraq's immediate neighbours (especially Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon) currently bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis (up to 100,000 fleeing every month and around from 2 million in total!).
Similarly, if the Swedish town of Sodertalje could last year take twice as many Iraqi refugees as the entire US took since the war began (700!), it is woeful for us to expect these Iraqi citizens to risk their lives in our service and face almost certain death on our departure.
If for some reason you are correct on public opinion, I suspect that very same public opinion will do a 180 once stories start emerging of these very people being lynched after our draw down. Of course, it would probably come as no surprise to the Iraqis themselves, the US and UK being the chief principals of the war in the first place, giving one final finger to the country as we cut our losses and leave.
Considering we take refugees and immigrants from a myriad of nations, why is Iraq being singled out as a specific risk, and why those working directly for British forces? If you have ever read Home Office refugee paperwork you'd know that they rely almost exclusively on expert witnesses and educated judgements on a wealth of information for each refugee application - it simply isn't an exact science. Under your rationale we could take no refugees from Iraq whatsoever, despite Iraqi refugees being clearly as eligible as any other nation, despite our UN obligations (especially this being a war to uphold UN resolutions afterall) and despite Iraq's immediate neighbours (especially Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon) currently bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis (up to 100,000 fleeing every month and around from 2 million in total!).
Similarly, if the Swedish town of Sodertalje could last year take twice as many Iraqi refugees as the entire US took since the war began (700!), it is woeful for us to expect these Iraqi citizens to risk their lives in our service and face almost certain death on our departure.
If for some reason you are correct on public opinion, I suspect that very same public opinion will do a 180 once stories start emerging of these very people being lynched after our draw down. Of course, it would probably come as no surprise to the Iraqis themselves, the US and UK being the chief principals of the war in the first place, giving one final finger to the country as we cut our losses and leave.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very noble sentiment and one that goes to the heart of freedom of speach. Unless of course, you live in Britain in 2007, where if you dare to disagree with the prevailing wooly liberal theories and ideals, you are shouted down and vilified with a near totalitarian zeal as an outrageous lunatic fringe element. An interesting divergence of ideals and reality don't you think?
I disagree entirely with your "security" issue, however, I must further point out that is was not myself who raised the economic argument: this was raised prior to me joining this thread.
Needless to say, if the UK were to consider them a security threat, who else would you expect to take them?
I think that persuing your view presents a very dangerous black and white, right and wrong picture of the issue, which is inherently far more complex: along with the whole of the sorry mess of Iraq.
What is noble is presenting facts and holding educated opinions, not calling anyone who disagrees with you a "wooly liberal" - something that I quite adamently am not.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The Times: Abandoned - the 91 Iraqis who risked all
Times Editorial: Do the Right Thing
Britain must not abandon its bravest allies in Iraq
Interpreters working for the British Government and the British Army in Iraq risk their lives every day. Whether or not their duties put them in danger from bullets or roadside bombs, they are demonised and remorselessly hunted by extremist militias who accuse them of colluding with the enemy. Some have already been subjected to unspeakable torture and summary execution as a result, and the risk to interpreters and other Iraqi employees on British bases will only increase as the British role in Basra moves from one of active engagement to “overwatch”.
If anyone has a compelling case for asylum, these people do, and it is further strengthened by the British Government’s responsibility towards them as an employer. Yet the Home Office has made no contingency plans for them and issued no special advice to immigration officers. One interpreter who wrote a personal plea for help to Tony Blair was brushed off with a suggestion that he consult the UK’s entry clearance website. Downing Street and the Home Office must move fast to prevent the fate of Britain’s bravest Iraqi allies becoming a national scandal.
The 91 locally hired interpreters currently working for the British military in Iraq are strongly supported in their requests for a fair hearing from the immigration authorities by the soldiers who daily depend on them. It is not hard to see why. Some will have known as friends and colleagues the victims on whom we report today, among them Haidr al-Mtury, murdered with a bullet to the head after having holes drilled through his hands and knees and acid poured on his face; and Abu Kiffah, forced to telephone his wife on his mobile phone so that she could hear his final moments.
It is true that for another 63 interpreters hired from countries other than Iraq the outlook is marginally less terrifying. At the end of their contracts they can, in principle, go home to relative safety. But it would be callous folly to dismiss as exaggeration the claims from Iraqi interpreters that their lives are at stake. The Danish authorities have accepted this. All 22 interpreters used by its military contingent in Iraq were given the choice of evacuation to Denmark or a third country with their immediate families, or substantial cash compensation. Some 200 Iraqis were airlifted to Denmark last month as a result.
Spain offered its Iraqi employees asylum before withdrawing its troops from the country in 2004. Poland has said of its local employees that “we will not leave these people alone”. In the US, plans are in place to admit 7,000 Iraqi refugees from later this year, and Congress is to debate legislation that could admit another 60,000. The British response has been pitiful by comparison: in the absence of any special arrangements, Britain’s Iraqi interpreters must somehow reach British soil under their own steam if they want asylum, and then apply for it. Each case is then “judged on its merits”.
This may sound scrupulously fair on paper. In practice it requires those who have risked their lives for Britain’s mission in Iraq to apply to the British Embassy in Jordan for a visitor’s visa, knowing that nine in ten such applications have hitherto failed. If lucky, they must then take their chances with an asylum system that so far refuses to recognise their unique circumstances. The Home Office has a simple choice: to act honourably, as this small, brave group has in working for peace in Iraq, or to force them to the back of the asylum queue and hang its head in shame.
Times Editorial: Do the Right Thing
Britain must not abandon its bravest allies in Iraq
Interpreters working for the British Government and the British Army in Iraq risk their lives every day. Whether or not their duties put them in danger from bullets or roadside bombs, they are demonised and remorselessly hunted by extremist militias who accuse them of colluding with the enemy. Some have already been subjected to unspeakable torture and summary execution as a result, and the risk to interpreters and other Iraqi employees on British bases will only increase as the British role in Basra moves from one of active engagement to “overwatch”.
If anyone has a compelling case for asylum, these people do, and it is further strengthened by the British Government’s responsibility towards them as an employer. Yet the Home Office has made no contingency plans for them and issued no special advice to immigration officers. One interpreter who wrote a personal plea for help to Tony Blair was brushed off with a suggestion that he consult the UK’s entry clearance website. Downing Street and the Home Office must move fast to prevent the fate of Britain’s bravest Iraqi allies becoming a national scandal.
The 91 locally hired interpreters currently working for the British military in Iraq are strongly supported in their requests for a fair hearing from the immigration authorities by the soldiers who daily depend on them. It is not hard to see why. Some will have known as friends and colleagues the victims on whom we report today, among them Haidr al-Mtury, murdered with a bullet to the head after having holes drilled through his hands and knees and acid poured on his face; and Abu Kiffah, forced to telephone his wife on his mobile phone so that she could hear his final moments.
It is true that for another 63 interpreters hired from countries other than Iraq the outlook is marginally less terrifying. At the end of their contracts they can, in principle, go home to relative safety. But it would be callous folly to dismiss as exaggeration the claims from Iraqi interpreters that their lives are at stake. The Danish authorities have accepted this. All 22 interpreters used by its military contingent in Iraq were given the choice of evacuation to Denmark or a third country with their immediate families, or substantial cash compensation. Some 200 Iraqis were airlifted to Denmark last month as a result.
Spain offered its Iraqi employees asylum before withdrawing its troops from the country in 2004. Poland has said of its local employees that “we will not leave these people alone”. In the US, plans are in place to admit 7,000 Iraqi refugees from later this year, and Congress is to debate legislation that could admit another 60,000. The British response has been pitiful by comparison: in the absence of any special arrangements, Britain’s Iraqi interpreters must somehow reach British soil under their own steam if they want asylum, and then apply for it. Each case is then “judged on its merits”.
This may sound scrupulously fair on paper. In practice it requires those who have risked their lives for Britain’s mission in Iraq to apply to the British Embassy in Jordan for a visitor’s visa, knowing that nine in ten such applications have hitherto failed. If lucky, they must then take their chances with an asylum system that so far refuses to recognise their unique circumstances. The Home Office has a simple choice: to act honourably, as this small, brave group has in working for peace in Iraq, or to force them to the back of the asylum queue and hang its head in shame.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
On a Radio 2 interview earlier today, someone stated that to date, a total of 250 interpreters have been killed/murdered in Iraq. This obviously is not good. They've put their lives on the line for us, although some may say purely for financial gain. Why do they want to come to the UK? Possibly because they know of the benefits system here? We can help them in other ways. Their relocation in another part of Iraq or a neighbouring country would give them the climate, diet, possibly the language etc. that they're used to. Surely this would be the best option and there would be few complaints? After all, we relocate rapists and murderers here, complete with change of identity for their own protection!
From Radio 2 news this morning, the number of people helping the British forces, is about 20,000, so if the figure keeps increasing at this rate (91 to 20,000 in a few weeks), then we might as well just move all Brits out of the UK to make way for any 'asylum' seeker that wants to come here.
IIRC the international rules on Asylum, is that you are to claim Asylum in the FIRST safe country outside your country of domicile. This does not make the UK the first correct choice for ANYONE from any of the African, Asian or Middle East countries.
We have run out of houses, we are running out of space - Can we keep on accepting EVERYBODY.
IIRC the international rules on Asylum, is that you are to claim Asylum in the FIRST safe country outside your country of domicile. This does not make the UK the first correct choice for ANYONE from any of the African, Asian or Middle East countries.
We have run out of houses, we are running out of space - Can we keep on accepting EVERYBODY.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted over on ARRSE, where there is a strong overall view that these interpreters deserve rather better than to be abandoned to torture and death for trying to work on the right side:
An old Arab saying;
"It is better to have the British as your enemy than your friend. If you are their enemy they buy you; if you are their friend they sell you."
An old Arab saying;
"It is better to have the British as your enemy than your friend. If you are their enemy they buy you; if you are their friend they sell you."
