Zimbabwe has no hand in UK deportations

The MDC Alliance in the UK and a two-man group calling itself the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe organised a poorly attended demonstration in London at the Zimbabwe embassy.

They were demonstrating against deportations of Zimbabweans from the United Kingdom to Harare. Reasons for the deportation included involvement in criminal activity, the end of a prison sentence, overstaying of a visa, or actions which cause the loss of legal right to remain.  

The Zimbabwean Embassy offered non-judgemental and practical support in such situations, and seek to ease the bureaucratic burden for the individual concerned and their family.

The embassy does not make representations on the individual's behalf for a deportation order to be overturned, and Zimbabweans should be aware that decisions by immigration authorities are generally final and they have nothing to do with the embassy.  Zimbabwe is horrified by the MDC and those organisations demonstrating at the embassy against deportations.

This shows the mentality of some opposition members who just want to vilify Zimbabwe.  

One wonders how Zimbabwe is involved in the deportation of criminals from United Kingdom. Demonstrations at the embassy do not help. It is not the embassy which depots people.  The embassy only verifies nationality of the deportees. The ambassador does not have any power to decide who should be deported. When these people are deported, their crimes are not disclosed to the embassy or to anyone for that matter.

The British have an embassy in Zimbabwe so they know the situation on the ground. Deportation is not meant by nature to be rewarded.  We cannot reward criminals for committing crimes. It is curious that the demonstrations are funded by John Burke.  This John Burke is a white man who solicits funds purporting to be fighting a cause for human rights. He simply led the few Zimbabweans to soil the good name of Zimbabwe.  

Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. The term expulsion is often used as a synonym for deportation, though expulsion is more often used in the context of international law.

According to the UK Immigration Act 1971 sections 3(5) and (6), the secretary of state has the power to give an order for deportation against any criminal action of a foreign national. By the term deportation, it refers that the individual needs to leave the country and sanction their detention as well till their removal.

All countries reserve the right to deport persons without right of abode even those who are longtime residents or possess permanent residency.  Contrary to the utterances by the demonstrators, if the Home Office wants you to leave the UK, they'll tell you in writing. You can challenge their decision by explaining why you should be able to stay in the UK.  

Your letter will tell you how to challenge the decision. You should get help from an immigration specialist if you want to challenge the Home Office's decision.  An immigration specialist will discuss your situation and help you challenge the decision. For example, you might be able to stay if leaving would go against your human rights or if you can apply for asylum.   

If you exhaust all the given rights, the only thing left will be your deportation. One of the striking aspects of the issue of deportation is that it is the state's ultimate and most naked form of immigration control.  The omission is curious, as deportation goes directly to the heart of concerns raised by liberalism, democracy and human rights.

Deportation, as a concept and as a policy, embodies what one might call the liberal democratic paradox. On the one hand, deportation or, more generally, the capacity to exercise border control, is fundamental to liberal democracy in two senses.  And fundamental to the sovereignty of the state is the capacity to control borders.

Second, policy in a liberal democracy must in some measure reflect the aggregated preferences of its citizens.

And nowhere does a majority of the citizenry support open borders. Despite a growing normative literature hoping to problematize the ethical status of borders, immigration control remains a central and, arguably, a necessary feature in the maintenance of the liberal democratic state.

Immigration control implies two capacities: to block the entry of individuals to a state, and to secure the return of those who have entered.  What MDC and it's supporting rogues do not know is that the embassy represents its country and head of station, along with its policies, to a foreign host country of which they retain a governmental residence and their own sovereign territory.  

An embassy is headed by an ambassador, who directly represents their countries' own head of state who carries and sees out business on their behalf. A president or prime minister appoints their ambassadors who they see fit to properly represent their country, this selection of personnel has a huge role on the position of a country and its embassy's image.  

The ambassador has the responsibility to maintain and increase relations with its host country while acquiring key information and reporting back to the country it represents.  

Ambassadors also have the responsibility of protecting and offering information and help to its country's citizens abroad. But they do not interfere with the due process.  The MDC is trying to force the ambassador to interfere in the internal issues of the UK. In this new dispensation, there are no reasons for Zimbabweans abroad to seek asylum.  

The Government does not persecute opposition members. Zimbabwe has mayors who are from the opposition camp. A large percentage of the Members of Parliament are from the opposition camp.

Those demonstrators in the UK cannot claim to be more MDC than Chamisa, who is freely roaming the streets of Zimbabwe.  It is, therefore, laughable that we have people led by John Burke who claims that their lives will be in danger if they are returned to Zimbabwe.  

Those demonstrating and afraid to go back to Zimbabwe are afraid of crimes they have committed in Zimbabwe and are now hiding behind politics so that they cannot be brought to justice.  The demonstrators are trying to hold the UK to ransom by demanding a stop to deportations.  

The embassy only assists with travel documents after they are satisfied that you are a Zimbabwean.  

The fact that one has worked in the UK for many years does not mean that he has a right to stay in that country. There are procedures to be followed in order to gain legality in your stay in the UK.  

The question John Burke and his lunatics need to answer is: Why demonstrating at the embassy? What do they want the embassy to do?  

Zimbabwe is doing what is expected, it is accepting and welcoming back its citizens. Like a parent who welcomes his or her prodigal son back, Zimbabwe welcomes its errant children back.

The demonstrations have nothing to do with deportations. It is a well calculated ploy to soil the image of Zimbabwe.